State v. Rollinger, 39845.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1929
• Docket Number: No. 39845.,39845.
• Citation: 208 Iowa 1155,225 N.W. 841
• Parties: STATE v. ROLLINGER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

208 Iowa 1155

225 N.W. 841

STATE

v.ROLLINGER.

No. 39845.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 24, 1929.

Appeal from District Court, Plymouth County; C. C. Bradley, Judge.

Defendant was indicted for bootlegging, convicted, and, from sentence entered thereon, he appeals. Affirmed.Kass, Zink & Kass, of Sioux City, for appellant.

John Fletcher, Atty. Gen., and Neill Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ALBERT, C. J.

The only question on appeal that deserves consideration arises from the following facts: About April 1, 1928, two officers searched the dwelling house of the defendant and found therein five bottles of intoxicating liquor. Before the commencement of the trial, the defendant filed a petition in the district court asking that these bottles of liquor be returned to him, as they had been procured by illegal search and seizure. The court refused this petition, and on the trial of the case they were offered and received in evidence. When offered they were objected to, on the ground that they had been procured from the dwelling house of the defendant without a search warrant or any authority. These rulings are the principal errors assigned on appeal.

Counsel cite numerous decisions from the United States Supreme Court under the federal Constitution on this question, and, if they were in federal court, their contention would be abundantly supported by the decisions cited, but, while the Constitution of this state is almost a verbatim copy of a similar provision of the federal Constitution, this court has thought fit to put a construction thereon which does not correspond with the interpretation of the federal Constitution by the Supreme Court of the United States. This court has held the rule to be that, if the evidence offered is pertinent and material, the fact that it may have been secured by search and seizure, unsupported by a valid search warrant, is not a sustainable objection to the introduction of such evidence. State v. Tonn, 195 Iowa, 94, 191 N. W. 530;State v. Gorman, 196 Iowa, 237, 194 N. W. 225;Joyner v. Utterback, 196 Iowa, 1040, 195 N. W. 594;State v. Rowley, 197 Iowa, 977, 195 N. W. 881;State v. Parenti, 200 Iowa, 333, 202 N. W. 77;Lucia v. Utterback, 197 Iowa, 1181, 198 N. W. 626;State v. Wenks, 200 Iowa, 669, 202 N. W. 753;State v. Lambertti, 204 Iowa, 670, 215 N. W. 752.

We are not alone in thus interpreting such a constitutional provision and holding as we do on this question of the admissibility of such evidence,...