State v. Jaeger
| Citation | 219 N.W. 281,196 Wis. 99 |
| Parties | STATE v. JAEGER. |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1928 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Questions certified from the Circuit Court for Fond du Lac county; Chester A. Fowler, Circuit Judge. Questions answered: No.
Frank Jaeger was found guilty of illegally having in possession privately manufactured intoxicating liquor and of illegally having in possession materials and implements for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
Before imposing sentence, the court certified the following questions pursuant to the provisions of section 274.16 of the Statutes:
(1) Was the search warrant issued upon the testimony and proceedings stated and shown valid?
(2) Should the motion in arrest of judgment be denied and the defendant sentenced upon the verdict?John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and L. E. Gooding, Dist. Atty., of Fond du Lac, for the State.
Reilly & O'Brien and Frank W. Cosgrove, all of Fond du Lac, for defendant.
[1] The single question presented is whether the search warrant was valid. If the search warrant was properly issued, the evidence secured upon the search established defendant's guilt without question. If the warrant was improperly issued, the evidence obtained upon the search should not have been received upon the trial. There was no other evidence to establish defendant's guilt.
[2][3] The search warrant was issued upon the sworn testimony of a witness who had been confined in the county jail for 30 days before he gave his testimony. His knowledge of the possession of illicit liquor and of materials and implements for the manufacture of the same all related to a period which was prior to the time that he began his jail sentence. His testimony was not supplemented by any proof as to sales or violations of the law by the defendant during this 30–day period.
The building searched was the home of the defendant. Subdivision 6 of section 363.02 of the Statutes provides that no search warrant shall issue “to search any private dwelling, occupied as such, unless it is being used for the unlawful manufacture for sale, unlawful sale, or possession for sale, of liquor.”
When a private dwelling, occupied as such, is to be searched for liquor, the proof which will authorize the issuance of a search warrant must be directed to the use of the home at the time the search warrant is issued. Proof that a home was used for an illicit traffic in liquor 30 days prior to the issuance of the warrant, when this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Eason
......Kroening, 274 Wis. 266, 79 N.W.2d 810 (1956) ; Glodowski v. State, 196 Wis. 265, 220 N.W. 227 (1928); State v. Jaeger, 196 Wis. 99, 219 N.W. 281 (1928); and Jokosh v. State, 181 Wis. 160, 193 N.W.976 (1923). Defendant overstates the effect of the good faith exception. These cases have been distinguished or implicitly overruled by subsequent decisions. For example, Kroening held that a blood alcohol test, ......
-
State ex rel. Meyer v. Keeler
...search warrant was issued upon complaint made upon information and belief. Glodowski v. State, 196 Wis. 265, 220 N. W. 227;State v. Jaeger, 196 Wis. 99, 219 N. W. 281;Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 47 S. Ct. 248, 71 L. Ed. 520. The defendant, however, contends that since the furs and......
-
State v. Peterson
...the multi-unit building located at 4814 Dale St. in the Village of McFarland. As indicated above, the court, relying on State v. Jaeger, 196 Wis. 99, 219 N.W. 281 (1928), concluded that the information about Baird's trip to the Dale Street address was 'stale,' inasmuch as it had occurred 'd......
-
State v. Guy
...sec. 1542, p. 162, citing Sgro v. United States (1932), 287 U.S. 206, 53 S.Ct. 138, 77 L.Ed. 260, 85 A.L.R. 108; State v. Jaeger (1928), 196 Wis. 99, 101, 219 N.W. 281. Although the fact were true in 1965, its probative value to support a search in 1970 was It should also be pointed out tha......