Saum v. State
| Decision Date | 07 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 155,155 |
| Citation | 200 Md. 85,88 A.2d 562 |
| Parties | SAUM v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
D. K. McLaughlin and Francis H. Urner, both of Hagerstown, for appellant.
J. Edgar Harvey, Depty. Atty. Gen., (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., and John S. Hollyday, State's Atty. Washington Co., Hagerstown, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
This appeal is from a judgment and sentence of four months and a fine of $1,000 after a jury has returned a verdict of guilty on a charge of bookmaking. The appeal challenges the validity of the search warrant and the search and seizure thereunder of betting slips, taken from the person of the appellant.
It is contended that the warrant was defective in that it alleged that there was probable cause to believe that the law prohibiting betting on horse races was being violated, contrary to the provisions of chapter 81 of the Acts of 1950. This Act dealt with search warrants, not with the crime described. Precisely the same point was made in the recent case of Carpenter v. State, Md., 88 A.2d 180. For the reasons there stated we hold that the defect was not fatal.
The appellant contends that certain betting slips, taken from the person of the appellant on the public street at a point about one hundred yards distant from the Plaza Restaurant, were improperly admitted in evidence because the warrant did not authorize a search outside of the restaurant described in the warrant. The warrant was issued on the affidavit of Special Police Officer Diggins who swore that on two different days he saw a described man accept bets from customers in the Plaza Restaurant. It was directed to Diggins and commanded him, 'with the necessary and proper assistants, to enter the said premises at 18 North Potomac Street, Hagerstown, Maryland, Plaza Restaurant and search the person, clothing and pockets of the said white man who is previously described as being about fifty years of age, about five feet, ten inches in height and weighing about 165 pounds, who will be identified by the said Special Police Officer Frank R. Diggins, for betting slips * * * and any other paraphernalia used in the unlawful operation of gambling on the races * * * and seize all evidence pertaining to any form of gambling and any other paraphernalia of the description so found, and the body of the said described man who accepted bets; and all other persons who may be found in the said premises, who may be participating in the bookmaking activities, before me, the subscriber * * *.' Diggins testified that he went to the Plaza Restaurant about 2:20 p. m. on July 7, the date of the warrant, and observed the appellant taking bets from three or four different persons. The other police had not yet arrived when Saum went out. Diggins followed him and when he saw Detective Wigfield across the street pointed Saum out to him as the man described in the warrant whom he had just seen taking bets in the restaurant. Wigfield went over and showed Saum the warrant, arrested him and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gattus v. State, 146
...warrant, Bell v. State, 200 Md. 223, 88 A.2d 567; erroneous reference to the Act of 1950, ch. 81, Carpenter v. State, supra; Saum v. State, 200 Md. 85, 88 A.2d 562.' In Martini v. State, 200 Md. 609, 92 A.2d 456, it was held that although the description of the man in the warrant was defect......
-
Wilson v. State
...point as to the erroneous reference to Chapter 81 of the Acts of 1950 was made in Carpenter v. State, Md., 88 A.2d 180, and in Saum v. State, Md., 88 A.2d 562, just decided. For the reasons stated in those cases this erroneous reference does not invalidate the search The search warrant was ......
-
Giordano v. State, 10
...the search warrant, Bell v. State, Md., 88 A.2d 567; erroneous reference to the Act of 1950, ch. 81,Carpenter v. State, supra; Saum v. State, Md., 88 A.2d 562.' We are of opinion that the description of the appellant as being 'a white man, about 40 years of age, about 5 feet 6 inches tall, ......
-
Webster v. State
...other description or designation. See Giordano v. State, 203 Md. 174, 100 A.2d 31; Wilson v. State, 200 Md. 187, 88 A.2d 564; Saum v. State, 200 Md. 85, 88 A.2d 562. Cf. Martini v. State, 200 Md. 609, 92 A.2d 456. Therefore, the search of the appellant 'Candy' under the authority of the war......
-
Just the Facts, Ma’am: Removing the Drama from Dna Dragnets
...665 A.2d 142 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995); Dow v. State, 113 A.2d 423 (Md. 1955); Giordano v. State, 100 A.2d 31 (Md. 1953); Saum v. State, 88 A.2d 562 (Md. 1952); State v. Malave, 316 A.2d 706 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1974); State v. Moriarty, 338 A.2d 14 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1975); State v. M......