State v. Hesse

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROWN
• Citation: State v. Hesse, 154 Minn. 89, 191 N. W. 267 (Minn. 1922)
• Decision Date: 22 December 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23181.,23181.
• Parties: STATE v. HESSE.

154 Minn. 89

191 N.W. 267

STATE

v.HESSE.

No. 23181.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 22, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Blue Earth County; W. L. Comstock, Judge.

H. C. Hesse was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and from an order denying a new trial, he appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The description of the premises as contained in the search warrant referred to in the opinion held sufficiently definite, and that certain intoxicating liquor found therein, and taken by the officer in the execution of the warrant, was admissible in evidence against the accused.

The court takes judicial notice of the organized municipalities of the state and of the section, town, and range in which they are located.

The court will also take notice of the fact, a matter of common knowledge, that trunk highways of the state are generally known in particular localities by the name of some principal village or city to and from which they lead.

Such facts may be taken into consideration by an officer with a search warrant commanding him to search certain premises described, in part, as a ‘small white house just east of the Mapleton road south of Mankato,’ situated upon a designated section of land.

Until overruled or expressly departed from, the rule of evidence stated in State v. Stoffels, 89 Minn. 205, 94 N. W. 675, should be followed and applied, notwithstanding a contrary rule in force in the federal courts upon the same subject.

In prosecution for having possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, in violation of Laws 1921, c. 391, evidence procured by an officer in the execution of a search warrant was admissible, even if it be conceded that the search warrant was fatally defective for insufficiency of description. Regan & Grogan, of Mankato, for appellant.

C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., and C. E. Phillips, Co. Atty., of Mankato, for the State.

BROWN, C. J.

Defendant was indicted and on trial convicted in the district court of Blue Earth county of having in his possession a quantity of intoxicating liquor for sale, in violation of the provisions of chapter 391, Laws 1921. He appealed from an order denying a new trial.

It appears that defendant had been suspected of violating the statute by manufacturing and selling intoxicating liquors at his home near the city of Mankato, this state, and on the 12th of May, 1922, a search warrant was sworn out and issued by the municipal court of that city, thereby commanding the officer to whom it was delivered for service forthwith to enter the premises described therein, and there make search for intoxicating liquor, or apparatus designed for the manufacture of the same, and report the result of the search to the court issuing the warrant. The officer selected to serve the writ proceeded to the premises he understood to be described therein, and found defendant in the occupancy and possession thereof, and also found a quantity of intoxicating liquor, which he seized and delivered to the court on the return of the warrant. Defendant was subsequently indicted for a violation of the statute, and on the trial thereof the liquor so seized was offered and received as evidence against him, over his objection that, because of defects in the search warrant, it furnished no protection or justification to the officer for the invasion of his premises, that the seizure was therefore illegal, and the liquor inadmissible against him. Whether there was error in that ruling of the trial court presents the only question urged in support of the appeal. We answer it in the negative.

The precise contention of defendant is that, by reason of the alleged defective and insufficient description of the premises to be searched, as given and expressed in the warrant, the warrant was a nullity, vesting in the officer no authority to enter the premises of defendant; that his act in doing so was a violation of defendant's rights, and in legal effect wrongfully compelling him to furnish evidence against himself, in violation of both the state and federal Constitutions. The case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177, is relied upon in support of the point.

[1] If it be conceded that the warrant...