State v. Llewellyn
| Citation | 119 Wash. 306,205 P. 394 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | 17031. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | STATE v. LLEWELLYN. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Grays Harbor County; Geo. D. Abel Judge.
S.D Llewellyn was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Dan Pearsall, of Aberdeen, for appellant.
Austin M. Wade, of Aberdeen, for the State.
The appellant, Llewellyn, was convicted in a justice court of Grays Harbor county of the crime of unlawfully having in his possession intoxicating liquor, and from the judgment of conviction appealed to the superior court of that county. Prior to the time the cause was set for trial in the superior court, he filed a petition in that court, entitled as a petition for the exclusion and return of evidence, in which he alleged that certain police officers of the city of Aberdeen had, without a search warrant or other authority broken into and entered his place of business after the same had been closed for the day, and had illegally and unlawfully taken therefrom a pitcher, some drinking glasses, and a bottle containing some form of liquid; that unless restrained by the court the officers would testify as to what occurred in the place after their unlawful and illegal entry therein; and that the prosecution would introduce on the trial of the cause the pitcher, glasses, and liquid as evidence of the petitioner's guilt, unless restrained by the court. The prayer of the petition was that the pitcher, glasses, and liquid be returned to him, and that the police officers be restrained from testifying as to anything that occurred in the place after their entry therein.
The state, answering the petition, admitted the seizure of the pitcher, glasses, and liquid, averring the liquid to be intoxicating liquor, commonly known as moonshine whisky, but denied that the officers seizing the same broke into the building, or that they otherwise unlawfully entered, averring that they entered as of right.
At the time the cause was called for trial the question arose whether the issue made by the petition should be first tried, and the court, after hearing the statements of counsel and finding a disagreement between them as to the facts, announced that it would proceed with the trial and reserve the question for determination after the evidence thereon had been introduced.
At the hearing it developed that the appellant, Llewellyn, conducted a place where cigars, candies, and soft drinks were sold. The officers testified that they were attracted to the place after it had been closed for the day by a light burning therein; that they walked over to the place and discovered a number of men, apparently much interested in something that was taking place on the bar over which the soft drinks were usually served; that at about that time a person came up the street and knocked on the entrance door of the building, and that they then moved down to the door; that the door was opened from the inside, and that they went in ahead of the person knocking; that as they entered the building the person opening the door discovered that they were officers, and sought to warn the men at the bar by hollowing, 'Look out!' that the men were shaking dice, having considerable sums of money stacked in front of them, and were so intent upon the game as to give no heed to the warning until they were upon them; that when the men discovered their presence, certain of the players grabbed the money, and that the appellant grabbed a pitcher which was on a draining board behind the bar; that one of the officers reached for the pitcher at the same time, and succeeded in getting hold of it; that a struggle ensued between the officers and the appellant for its possession, resulting in the end in the success of the officers. One of the officers did not see what the pitcher contained prior to the commencement of the struggle for its possession, but the other testified that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Seattle v. McCready
....... Frederick Gentry, Olympia, amicus curiae for respondent on behalf of Washington State Fire Chiefs Ass'n. . UTTER, Judge. . In this case, we once again consider the constitutionality of portions of the ...Llewellyn, 119 Wash. 306, . Page 274 . 309-10, 205 P. 394 (1922). A well-established common law tradition of judicial issuance of search warrants could ......
-
State v. Owens
...contraband subject-matter or unlawful possession of it is fully disclosed and open to the eye and hand." The case of State v. Llewellyn, 119 Wash. 306, 205 Pac. 394, is where a policeman entered a saloon, a public place, and saw a pitcher of intoxicating liquor. The officer had no warrant, ......
-
State v. Martin
...then it was proper for the officers to testify concerning those things that were open and plainly visible to them. State v. Llewellyn, 119 Wash. 306, 205 P. 394; State v. Miller, 121 Wash. 153, 209 P. 9; State v. Nilnch, 131 Wash. 344, 230 P. 129; State v. Nelson, 146 Wash. 17, 261 P. 796; ......
-
City of Tacoma v. Houston, 29698.
...... without a search warrant, contrary to the provisions of the. Federal and state constitutions and the statutes of the state. of Washington; and that no offense had been committed in the. presence of the officer and ... testify concerning those things that were open and plainly. visible to them. State v. Llewellyn, 119 Wash. 306,. 205 P. 394; State v. Miller, 121 Wash. 153, 209 P. 9; State v. Nilnch, 131 Wash. 344, 230 P. 129;. State v. ......
-
The Origin of Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution
...person in making an arrest without a warrant, they will equally justify a constable, sheriff, or watchman."). 132. State v. Llewellyn, 119 Wash. 306, 310, 205 P. 394, 396 (1922) ("Arrests for misdemeanor may be lawfully made without a warrant whe n the offense is committed in the presence o......