State v. Comolli

• Court: Maine Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SPEAR, J.
• Citation: State v. Comolli, 101 Me. 47, 63 A. 326 (Me. 1905)
• Decision Date: 27 December 1905
• Parties: STATE v. COMOLLI.

63 A. 326

101 Me. 47

STATE

v. COMOLLI.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 27, 1905.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Hancock County.

Search and seizure warrant issued against Stephen Comolli by a trial judge for the search of a dwelling house for intoxicating liquors. Liquors were found, and the defendant was arrested and brought before the Hancock municipal court for trial. The defendant was found guilty and appealed. A general demurrer was filed to the complaint and warrant, which was overruled, and the defendant took exceptions. Overruled.

Argued before EMERY, STROUT, SAVAGE, POWERS, PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.

Charles H. Wood, for the State. L. M. Staples, for defendant

SPEAR, J. This case comes up on exceptions and involves the validity of a complaint and warrant issued by a trial justice for the search of a dwelling house for intoxicating liquors. A general demurrer was filed and overruled by the court, to which exceptions were taken. The main question raised by the exceptions is whether the description in the complaint and warrant of the premises to be searched was sufficiently definite and certain to comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the law. The complaint alleges "that the intoxicating liquors were and still are kept and deposited by Stephen Comolli of Stonington, in a story and a half wooden, frame dwelling house now occupied by said Stephen Comolli and situate near the turn of the road leading from Stonington Village to West Stonington in said town of Stonington."

The warrant issued to the officers by the trial justice, in setting forth the complaint, designates the locus in the exact language of the above description, and then alleges that the complainant "prayed that due process be issued to search the premises hereinbefore mentioned." As we understand the defendant's brief, the point which he here raises is that the word "dwelling house" should have been used instead of the word "premises" in the above prayer in describing the place to be searched. If the term "premises" was not limited by the phrase "hereinbefore mentioned." the point might be well taken. A complaint and warrant merely to search the premises of a person would not authorize the search of a dwelling house, but that is not the case at bar. We fail to see how a description could be more definite as to the place intended to be searched than that contained in the complaint and warrant in this case. It describes the place to be searched as a story and a half wooden, frame dwelling house now occupied by said Stephen Comolli. If other houses were situated near the one described, also...