State v. Harley
Decision Date | 11 June 1917 |
Docket Number | 9692. |
Parties | STATE v. HARLEY ET AL. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Charleston County; R W. Memminger, Judge.
John Harley and others were convicted of maintaining a lottery, and appeal. Appeal dismissed.
B. H Mathews, of Charleston, for appellant.
Thos P. Stoney, of Charleston, for the State.
The defendants were convicted by the recorder of the city of Charleston and a jury for maintaining a lottery. They appealed to the court of general sessions, but their appeal was dismissed; whereupon they appealed to this court.
The first exception is as follows:
"Because his honor the presiding judge should have reversed the recorder, who erred, it is submitted, in stating in the presence of the jury that decisions of the United States Supreme Court had no place in the police court; whereas he should have held that, in so far as the said decisions are applicable to cases arising in the said police court, the same are binding thereon."
The recorder merely ruled in accordance with the well-settled principle that protection against officers not acting under claim of federal authority is not afforded by the guaranty of immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the federal Constitution, but the limitations of such amendment reach only the Federal government and its agents. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, reported in L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177.
The second assignment of error is thus stated:
"Because his honor the circuit judge should have reversed the recorder, who erred, it is submitted, in allowing books and papers illegally seized to be exhibited to the jury."
The following is the language of his honor the circuit judge in dismissing the appeal:
It does not appear that the books and papers in question were illegally seized, but, even if they had been so seized, they nevertheless would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Griffin
...A. & E. Enc. L. 1159, held: "The admission of the evidence did not violate the constitutional right of the defendant." In State v. Harley, 107 S.C. 304, 92 S.E. 1034, a adjoining that in which the defendant was arrested was locked, the key to which was on the defendant's person. It was open......
-
State v. Maes
...172 N.C. 905, 90 S.E. 408; Smith v. McDuffee, 72 Or. 276, 142 P. 558, 143 P. 929, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 947; State v. Atkinson, supra; State v. Harley, supra; but waiver of right must be clear, United States Lydecker (D. C.) 275 F. 976; or if search is made pursuant to a lawful search or arrest,......
-
State v. McDuffie
... ... it form an issue to determine that question." ... This ... rule is quoted with approval in State v. Atkinson, ... 40 S.C. 363, 18 S.E. 1021, 42 Am. St. Rep. 877; State v ... McIntosh, 94 S.C. 439, 78 S.E. 327; and the same ... principles are announced in State v. Harley, 107 ... S.C. 304, 92 S.E. 1034, State v. Reeves, 112 S.C ... 383, 99 S.E. 841, and Weeks v. United States, 232 ... U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, ... Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177 ... The ... third exception is as follows: ... "Third. The presiding ... ...
-
State v. Hempley
...cases: State v. Atkinson, 40 S.C. 363, 18 S.E. 1021, 42 Am. St. Rep. 877; State v. McIntosh, 94 S.C. 439, 78 S.E. 327; State v. Harley, 107 S.C. 304, 92 S.E. 1034; State v. Reeves, 112 S.C. 383, 99 S.E. State v. Danelly, 116 S.C. 113, 107 S.E. 149, 14 A. L. R. 1420; State v. McDuffie, 113 S......