State v. Magnano

Citation97 Conn. 543,117 A. 550
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Decision Date07 July 1922
PartiesSTATE v. MAGNANO.

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; William M. Maltbie Judge.

Vincenzo Magnano was convicted of owning and keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to sell, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Before the trial the accused made a written petition to the court for the return to him of certain articles of personal property which he alleged had been illegally seized by police officers of the City of Middletown while they were searching his house without warrant of any kind, and which the state intended to use in evidence, in violation of the fourth and fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and of section 8, article 1, of the Constitution of this state. This petition was denied. Before the jury was impaneled, the accused made an oral motion for the same purpose, which was denied. When these articles of property were offered in evidence, the accused objected to their admission on the same grounds, the objection was overruled and they were put in evidence. The accused assigns these rulings of the court as reasons of appeal.

Where police officers went to the home of accused in response to a fire alarm, and after the fire was extinguished went with the firemen and accused into a shed adjacent to the house, and which was the seat of the fire, the seizure of a still and barrels and bottles containing mash and liquor was not a violation of Const.Conn. art. 1, § 8, nor Const.U.S Amend. 4.

Daniel J. Donahoe, of Middletown, for appellant.

Ernest A. Inglis, State's Atty., of Middletown, for the State.

BURPEE, J.

Two police officers of the city of Middletown, in response to a fire alarm, went to a house owned and occupied by the accused in that city, and after the city firemen had forced an entrance they went with the firemen through the house and to a connecting shed from which the smoke of the fire was issuing. They stood by while the firemen extinguished the fire, and then entered the shed with the accused. There they discovered apparatus for distilling liquor, which apparently had been recently in operation, and barrels and bottles containing mash and liquors. Thereupon the police officers arrested the accused and removed all the articles they had found to the police station, against the objection of the accused. They had no warrant to search the place or to seize any property.

The accused claims that the superior court erred in refusing to grant his petition and motion that his property be returned to him because it was taken without a search warrant, and again erred in admitting in evidence the things thus taken because he was compelled in this way to give evidence against himself. He relies on sections 8 and 9 of article 1 of the Constitution of this state, and on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

It is apparent that when the police officers entered the premises of the accused it was not to make a search of any kind or to seize anything. Their entrance was not obtained by stealth subterfuge, or deception, or in the absence of the accused, or for any ulterior purpose. They were there only to perform their duty as peace officers required by the common law of the state and by an ordinance of the city of Middletown to do all in their power to protect life and property and preserve the peace. After they had lawfully entered the shed they discovered things which reasonably indicated that the accused was at that time violating a law of this state. It then became their duty not only to arrest the man who was committing a crime in their presence, but to seize anything he was then using to commit the offense and which might be made evidence of his guilt. Smith v. Jerome, 47 Misc.Rep. 22, 93 N.Y.Supp. 202. There is nothing in the admitted facts to indicate that this seizure was made with any unlawful violation of the accused's rights in his person, house, or possessions or that it deprived him of the protection of any constitutional guaranty. Ely v. Bugbee, 90 Conn. 584, 589, 98 A. 121, L.R.A. 1916F, 910; State v. Mausert, 88 N.J.Law, 286, 95 A. 991, L.R.A. 1916C, 1014; 5 Corpus Juris, 434; 35 Cyc. 1271. In the circumstances appearing in this case, no search warrant was necessary to make the entry lawful, and the seizure was not unreasonable. The prohibition contained in section 8 of article 1 of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • State v. Kono
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • December 22, 2016
    ...jeopardy until United States Supreme Court applied fifth amendment guarantee against double jeopardy to states); State v. Magnano , 97 Conn. 543, 546, 117 A. 550 (1922) (declining to apply federal exclusionary rule in state proceeding because state constitution did not require exclusion of ......
  • State v. Dukes, 13246
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • September 6, 1988
    ...State v. Carol, 120 Conn. 573, 575, 181 A. 714 [1935]; State v. Reynolds, [supra, 101 Conn. at 231, 125 A. 636]; State v. Magnano, 97 Conn. 543, 546, 117 A. 550 [1922]; State v. Griswold, supra, 67 Conn. at 306, 34 A. 1046]." State v. DelVecchio, 149 Conn. 567, 572, 182 A.2d 402 (1962). Aft......
  • State v. Maes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 7, 1923
    ...264 Fed. 842; United States v. Camaroto (D. C. Cal.) 278 Fed. 388; United States v. Snvder (D. C. W. Va.) 278 Fed 650; State v. Magnano. 97 Conn. 543, 117 Atl. 550; Bowling v. Com., 193 Ky. 642, 237 S. W. 381; State v. Mausert, supra; Smith v. Jerome, 47 Misc. Rep. 22, 93 N. Y. Supp. 202; S......
  • State v. Owens
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 11, 1924
    ...Walser, 45 S. D. 417, 187 N. W. 823; People v. Adams, 176 N. Y. 351, 68 N. E. 636, 63 L. R. A. 406, 98 Am. St. Rep. 675; State v. Magnano, 97 Conn. 543, 117 Atl. 550. The doctrine will appear in many of the cases cited below, stating that the state courts have construed these guaranties of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT