Silva v. State
| Citation | 116 P. 199,6 Okla.Crim. 97,1911 OK CR 259 |
| Parties | SILVA v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1911 |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Evidence obtained by means of a search warrant is not inadmissible either upon ground that it is in the nature of admissions made under duress, or that it is evidence which the defendant has been compelled to furnish against himself, or on the ground that the evidence has been unfairly or illegally obtained, even if it appears that the search warrant was illegally issued.
Appeal from Pittsburg County Court; R. W. Higgins, Judge.
John Silva was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed.
Stuart Gordon & Liedtke, for plaintiff in error.
Chas West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of having possession of intoxicating liquor with the intent to sell, barter, give away, and otherwise furnish said liquor, and was, on October 23, 1909, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for a period of three months, and to pay a fine of $250 and costs.
The testimony in this case is in substance as follows: Four deputy sheriffs testified that on the day of the alleged offense they went to the defendant's premises at Krebs to execute a search warrant, and there found about a dozen cases of whisky, two or three barrels of beer, and several bottles of wine; some of the beer was in the ice box; part of the whisky was found under the floor, and the rest found in a partition wall. They found several persons drinking beer, and a man was lying on the floor drunk.
The testimony of these witnesses was received over the objection of the defendant that the same was incompetent and inadmissible for the reason that the search warrant was illegally issued, and in support of this objection the affidavit and warrant were introduced in evidence. This objection is renewed here, and it is further contended "That an officer executing a search warrant against a defendant, cannot testify on the trial of the defendant as to what occurred during his search, because this would be equivalent to forcing the defendant to testify against himself.' The affidavit, it appears, was made upon information and belief, and it must be conceded that the search warrant was issued without warrant of law and in violation of section 30 of the Bill of Rights, providing that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, describing as particularly as may be the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized." However, admitting that the search warrant illegally issued and that the officers in serving it exceeded their authority, this would not constitute a legal objection to the admissibility of the evidence. The accepted rule is that the admissibility of evidence is not affected by the illegality of...
To continue reading
Request your trial