State v. Lock
Decision Date | 11 February 1924 |
Docket Number | 23760 |
Parties | THE STATE v. WILLIAM LOCK and ANNA LOCK, Appellants |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Webster Circuit Court; Hon. C. H. Skinker Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
G S. Dugan and Seth V. Conrad for appellants.
(1) To prevent the introduction of testimony secured by reason of an illegal and void search warrant, the question must be raised by motion to quash such search warrant and to suppress testimony procured thereby, and not by objection to introduction of testimony. State v. Pomeroy, 130 Mo 489; People v. Adams, 48 Law Ed. 575; United States v. Weeks, 58 Law Ed. 657. (2) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized, must be particularly described. Fourth Amendment of U.S. Constitution; Sec. 11, Art. 2, Mo. Constitution; Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532; Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 391, 58 Law Ed. 656; United States v. Wong, 94 F. 834. (3) No party can be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor can he be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Fifth Amendment of U.S. Constitution; Sec. 23, art. 2, Mo. Constitution; United States v. Rykowski; 267 F. 866; United States v. Slusser, 270 F. 819. (4) The statute under which the affidavit was filed and search warrant was issued in this case provides only for the search of a building or structure. And provides further that no warrant shall be issued to search a private dwelling house occupied as such, unless upon application to the court good reason is shown that such place is used for the purpose of violation of law, or unless such residence is a place of resort, or a place where intoxicating liquors are manufactured. Laws 1921, sec. 6595, p. 416. (5) The purported affidavit upon which the warrant was based was fatally defective because it contained the statement of no fact from which probable cause could be inferred. Laws 1921, sec. 6595, p. 416; Veeder v. United States, 252 F. 418; United States v. Kelih, 272 F. 484.
Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney-General, and J. Henry Caruthers, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
(1) It was not error to permit the sheriff and his deputies to testify to the articles found on the premises of appellants, and to permit the introduction in evidence of such articles. State v. Sharpless, 212 Mo. 200; State v. Pomeroy, 130 Mo. 500; State v. Kramer, 206 Mo.App. 54; State v. Pope, 243 S.W. 254. (2) This cause should be transferred to the Springfield Court of Appeals, for the reason that the offense charged is a misdemeanor and no constitutional question has been properly raised. Secs. 2411, 4107, 4108, R. S. 1919; State v. Swift & Co., 270 Mo. 694; Lohmeyer v. Cordage Co., 214 Mo. 685; Littlefield v. Littlefield, 272 Mo. 163; State v. Gamma, 215 Mo. 100.
DAVIS
On the 8th day of November, 1921, the Prosecuting Attorney of Webster County filed an information, consisting of two counts, in the circuit court. The first count, in substance, charged William Lock and Anna Lock, appellants, with having in their possession a still, etc., used and fit for use in making intoxicating liquor. The second count charged them with having intoxicating liquor in their possession.
The appellants were convicted, upon trial, before the court and a jury, upon evidence obtained in the execution of a search warrant issued by the circuit clerk in pursuance to an affidavit filed by the said prosecuting attorney, in the office of said circuit clerk, directed to the sheriff of said county, commanding him to search the residence, other buildings and premises, owned, occupied or under the control of Bill Lock, in Webster County.
The sworn statement of the prosecuting attorney is herewith set forth:
The search warrant, issued by the circuit clerk and the return thereon, by the sheriff, is as follows:
Webster County, Mo.
On the 16th day of January, 1922, the appellants filed their motion to quash the search warrant, and the return of the sheriff thereon, and to suppress any and all evidence obtained by the sheriff and those acting under and with him, under and by virtue of said search warrant.
Said motion to quash, omitting caption, is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State v. Capps
...against the person affected whose premises were searched. United States v. Camorto, 278 F. 388; State v. Owen, 259 S.W. 105; State v. Lock, 259 S.W. 116; v. United States, 232 U.S. 383. (c) The home owner who yields peaceably to the officers' demands is as much under restraint as if he forc......
-
The State v. Gilden
... ... mentis, then such declaration would be improper, and as ... a general proposition such instruction is too broad and ... without proper limitation. (3) The search warrant and all ... evidence had thereunder is a nullity. State v ... Owens, 302 Mo. 365; State v. Lock, 259 S.W ... 116. Nor does the case lately decided, State v ... Hall, 279 S.W. 102, hold contra to these authorities ... North ... T. Gentry, Attorney-General, and H. O. Harrawood, Special ... Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent ... (1) The ... ...