State v. Sheridan
| Decision Date | 09 October 1903 |
| Citation | 96 N.W. 730,121 Iowa 164 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. THOMAS SHERIDAN, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lyon District Court.--HON. GEO. W. WAKEFIELD, Judge.
INDICTMENT for malicious mischief. Verdict and judgment of guilty, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
E. C Roach and E. Y. Greenleaf for appellant.
C. W Mullan, Attorney General, and C. A. Van Vleck, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant, an ice dealer, was charged with having maliciously injured or destroyed a quantity of ice belonging to a competitor in business by putting upon it a large quantity of salt. The prosecuting witness claiming that his ice had been maliciously destroyed, and, having been informed that appellant bought a barrel of salt from a local merchant a day or two before that date, filed a preliminary information before a justice of the peace, and caused a warrant to issue for the appellant's arrest. At the same time the prosecuting witness filed an affidavit alleging the purchase of salt by appellant, and stating his belief that said salt was used in perpetrating the act of malicious mischief above mentioned, and that "said salt, or the barrel in which it was contained," was in the possession of appellant at his residence in Rock Rapids. On these allegations he asked for a warrant to search the appellant's residence and seize the described articles if found. A search warrant was thereupon issued, and the officer, in executing it, claimed to have found in the cellar of appellant's residence an empty salt barrel. On the trial in the district court the officer, as a witness for the state, identified the barrel so found, and said article was then offered and admitted in evidence over appellant's objection. The correctness of this ruling is the principal question discussed by counsel. Our state Constitution (article 1, section 8) guarantees the security of the people in their right to be exempt in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. Section 9 of the same article provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Under these provisions we have lately held that the admission of evidence procured by wrongful and forcible examination, by the officers of the state, of the person of one accused of crime, was reversible error. State v. Height, 117 Iowa 650, 91 N.W. 935. The principle involved was there very thoroughly discussed, and the authorities carefully reviewed, and, so far as the same are applicable here it is unnecessary to again present them. We shall therefore confine our inquiry upon this branch of the case to the point whether the question now before us falls within the scope of the doctrine announced in that decision.
It is conceded by the Attorney General that the search warrant was issued without the authority of law, and that the search and seizure made thereunder were wrongful. It was also shown by the evidence upon the trial, and without dispute, that the search warrant was asked for, procured, and served for the sole "purpose of obtaining testimony" against the appellant. For the purposes of this appeal we may admit it has often been held that the mere fact that evidence has been developed by the wrongful act or trespass of an officer or any other person will not necessarily render it inadmissible but we are confronted by the further fact that the evidence objected to was obtained by a palpable abuse of judicial process. In the Height Case, we said that, while an officer may properly testify to criminating facts discovered by him in the execution of a warrant lawfully issued, yet ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tonn
...was, in effect, requiring him to furnish evidence against himself. The Boyd case was again before us for consideration in State v. Sheridan, 121 Iowa 164, 96 N.W. 730. that case, a search warrant was obtained, and the defendant's premises searched, and certain evidence obtained which was so......
-
Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado
...41 S.E. 429, 432—433, 59 L.R.A. 465. TABLE B. STATE WHICH HAD FORMULATED THE WEEKS DOCTRINE BEFORE THE WEEKS DECISION. IOWA State v. Sheridan, 121 Iowa 164, 96 N.W. 730. TABLE STATES WHICH HAVE PASSED ON THE WEEKS DOCTRINE SINCE THE WEEKS CASE WAS DECIDED. Every State except Rhode Island. B......
-
State v. Davis
...later the Iowa Supreme Court ordered the exclusion of evidence that had been seized under an invalid search warrant. State v. Sheridan, 121 Iowa 164, 96 N.W. 730 (1903). This was a minority view, see contrary holdings collected in 24 A.L.R. 1408 (1923); and before those decisions Oregon had......
-
Elkins v. United States
...585, 141 N.E. 353 (excludable). Post-Wolf: Rohlfing v. State, 230 Ind. 236, 102 N.E.2d 199 (excludable.) IOWA Pre-Weeks: State v. Sheridan, 121 Iowa 164, 96 N.W. 730 Pre-Wolf: State v. Rowley, 197 Iowa 977, 195 N.W. 881 (admissible). Post-Wolf: State v. Smith, 247 Iowa 500, 73 N.W.2d 189 (a......
-
The Origin of Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution
...theory invoked to suppress letter seized during search pursuant to warrant authorizing search for stolen goods)); State v. Sheridan, 96 N.W. 730, 731 (1903) (allowing a defendant to be convicted on illegally seized evidence would "emasculate the constitutional guaranty, and deprive it of al......
-
"incorporation" of the Criminal Procedure Amendments: the View from the States
...stated that only Iowa had adopted the exclusionary rule prior to Weeks. Wolf, 338 U.S. at 29, 34 and tbl.B (citing State v. Sheridan, 96 N.W. 730 (Iowa 1903)). The Court in Wolfcited cases from Maryland and Vermont as part of a list of twenty-six states that had considered and rejected adop......
-
Freedom and Diversity in a Federal System: Perspectives on State Constitutions and the Washington Declaration of Rights
...Development in the South Atlantic States, 1776-1860, at 52-54 (1930)) (footnotes omitted). 21. See supra note 2. 22. State v. Sheridan, 121 Iowa 164, 166, 96 N.W. 730, 731 (1903) (exclusionary rule); Carpenter v. County of Dane, 9 Wise. 249, 250-51 (1859) (right to counsel); Coleman v. MacL......
-
The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away: the century of Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" doctrine.
...at least one state court had begun to apply the logic of nullity to illegal searches prior to Adams. See, e.g., State v. Sheridan, 96 N.W. 730 (Iowa 1903). Those developments may have prompted the justices to preemptively block emergence of a federal exclusionary principle in Adams. In that......