Snedegar v. State
| Decision Date | 20 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24,784 |
| Citation | 146 N.E. 849,196 Ind. 254 |
| Parties | Snedegar v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 3, 192, Reported at: 196 Ind. 254 at 257.
1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---A stranger cannot object to the search of a house.---The right of a citizen under the Constitution to be secure in his person, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure is a personal right of the one whose person, house or effects are searched and a stranger cannot complain of defects in the search warrant. p. 257.
2. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Evidence considered and held sufficient to prove possession of a still.---Upon trial of one for possession of a still for the manufacture of liquor the testimony of a house owner that accused had offered and paid him money for the privilege of operating a still in his house, and that the still was brought in, set up and operated, is sufficient proof of the offense, without regard to evidence found by officers under an alleged defective search warrant. p. 257.
From Marion Criminal Court (56,477); James A. Collins, Judge.
William Snedegar was convicted of possessing a still for the manufacture of whisky, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Arthur R. Robinson, Frank A. Symmes, Garth B. Melson, Donald F. Lafuze, E. W. Hoover, Eph Inman and Edwin Steers, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh, Attorney-General, and George A. Matlack, for the State.
In January, 1924, one Harry Thompson lived near Oaklandon Marion county, Indiana, on a farm operated by one Richardson, by whom he was employed to do farm labor, being furnished the house to live in and about an acre of ground surrounding it. Certain officers, with a search warrant, went to his home in the afternoon, when he was away, and read the search warrant to his wife, after which they searched the house, and in an upstairs room found a 100-gallon still, set up and "running," being hot, though there was no fire under it when it was found and also seventy gallons of "white mule whisky," sixteen barrels of mash, five bags of corn sugar, two empty ten-gallon kegs, a box of yeast in pound squares, fifty feet of water hose and eight empty barrels. When Thompson came home from work two hours later the officers read the search warrant to him, and then proceeded to remove the things enumerated, to which it does not appear that Thompson at any time objected. Some months later an affidavit was filed which charged that Thompson and the appellant, Snedegar, at Marion county, Indiana, on January 18, 1924, unlawfully and feloniously had in their possession and under their control a still and distilling apparatus for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor in violation of the laws of Indiana, and used it in and for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor in violation of such laws. On June 14, 1924, the court, on motion of the prosecuting attorney, entered an order dismissing the action as to Thompson, and discharging him. The case against Snedegar was then called for trial, when he made an oral motion to quash the search warrant and the affidavit on which it was issued, and the return, "and to suppress the evidence," but after examining witnesses the court overruled the motion, and appellant excepted. None of the articles seized were introduced in evidence, but one of the officers testified, over an objection and exception by appellant, that they searched Thompson's house under authority of a search warrant, and found there the articles above enumerated....
To continue reading
Request your trial