State v. Doremus

• Decision Date: 10 May 1915
• Docket Number: 21233
• Citation: 68 So. 605,137 La. 266
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. DOREMUS

68 So. 605

137 La. 266

STATE v. DOREMUS

No. 21233

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 10, 1915

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The constitutional requirement that a statute shall embrace only one object does not mean that each and every means necessary to accomplish an object in the law must be provided for by a separate act relating to it alone. A statute that deals with several branches of one subject does not thereby violate the constitutional requirement that the act must have only one object.

Under the definition of a 'blind tiger,' in the first section of Act No. 146 of 1914, the statute applies only to a place where some business is conducted in prohibition territory, and not to a private residence where no business is carried on.

The provision in the statute, that any place suspected of being a blind tiger shall be searched, by an officer designated in a search warrant, issued on an affidavit that the affiant believes the place to be a blind tiger and on such additional evidence as the court may require to make out a prima facie case, and that any intoxicating liquors found therein shall be seized by the officer and brought before the court along with all persons found in the place, is not violative of the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

A bill of indictment for the violation of a statutory crime, to be valid, must contain every essential element of the crime charged.

Carter & Carter, of Franklinton, for appellant.

R. G Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and J. Vol Brock, Dist. Atty., of Franklinton (G. A. Gondran, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

OPINION

O'NIELL, J.

The indictment, intending to charge the defendant with operating a blind tiger, alleged that he did, on the 24th day of December, 1914, in the parish of Washington, La., 'Willfully and unlawfully keep spirituous and intoxicating liquors for sale, barter, exchange and habitual giving away as a beverage in connection with his business of running a drug store, contrary to the form of the statute,' etc.

The defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment because, as he alleges, it does not charge the commission of any crime, and because, if based upon Act No. 146 of 1914, that statute, as he alleges, is unconstitutional and invalid in this: First, that it embraces more than one object, in violation of article 31 of the Constitution; second, that it provides for the seizure and search of private premises without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, in violation of article 7 of the Constitution; and, third, that the statute is not responsive to its title, in that it does not provide for the destruction of intoxicating liquor found on one's premises, as the title indicates it should provide.

The trial judge heard and overruled the defendant's motion, and he reserved a bill of exceptions to the ruling. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve 30 days in prison and to pay a fine of $ 500 and costs, or serve an additional term of 6 months in prison, subject to work on the public roads. The defendant has appealed.

The indorsement on the bill of indictment, 'Indictment for Blind Tiger,' indicates that it was for operating a blind tiger, in violation of the Act No. 146 of 1914, entitled:

'An act to define and prohibit the keeping of a 'blind tiger'; to provide for the search of same and for the seizure, and destruction of any spirituous, malt or intoxicating liquor found therein; to provide for the punishment of any violations of this act.'

The first section of the statute defines a blind tiger to be any place in those subdivisions of the state where the sale of spirituous, malt, or intoxicating liquors is prohibited, where such spirituous, malt, or intoxicant liquors are kept for sale, barter, exchange, or habitual giving away as a beverage in connection with any business conducted at such place. The second section of the act prohibits the keeping of a blind tiger, and declares that whoever shall be guilty of violating the statute shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The third section provides that any place suspected of being a blind tiger shall be searched by an officer designated in a search warrant, and any spirituous, malt, or intoxicating liquor found therein shall be seized by the officer and brought before the court issuing the warrant; that the warrant may be issued by any court having the power of a committing magistrate, on an affidavit reciting that the affiant believes a certain place to be a blind tiger, and on such additional evidence as the court may require to make out a prima facie case. The officer to whom such warrant is directed is required to make his return thereon within 24 hours after it is issued and to bring into court any spirituous, malt, or intoxicating liquor and all persons found in the premises. The court is then required to proceed without delay to examine into the facts as a committing magistrate. The fourth section of the statute provides that whoever shall be found guilty of keeping a blind tiger in violation of this act shall be fined not less than $ 200 nor more than $ 500 and be imprisoned not less than 30 days nor more than 6 months, and, in default of the payment of the fine and costs, shall be imprisoned not more than 6 months additional. The fifth section repeals all laws in conflict with this statute.

Taking up first the questions of the constitutionality of this statute, we find that it embraces only one general purpose or object; that is the suppression of blind...