State v. Slamon

• Decision Date: 20 July 1901
• Citation: State v. Slamon, 73 Vt. 212, 50 A. 1097, 87 Am. St. Rep. 711 (Vt. 1901)
• Parties: STATE v. SLAMON.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

50 A. 1097

73 Vt. 212

STATE

v. SLAMON.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

July 20, 1901.

Exceptions from Washington county court; Wilson, Judge.

Frank Slamon was convicted of grand larceny, and he brings exceptions. Reversed.

Argued before TAFT, C. J., and ROWELL, TYLER, MUNSON, and START, JJ.

Richard A. Hoar, State's Atty., for the State.

Fred B. Thomas, for respondent.

TAFT, C. J. 1. An officer had a search warrant to search the person of the respondent for stolen goods. When engaged in the search he found on the person of the respondent, and took from it, a letter written to the respondent by a person whom the latter improved as a witness, in the impeachment of whom the letter contained material testimomy. Upon trial the state offered the letter in evidence, and it was admitted under objection and exception. The exceptions do not state in express terms that the letter was taken from the person of the respondent against his will, but we so construe them, as it is the only fair inference from the whole record. The taking of the letter from the person of the respondent was a plain violation of the eleventh article of the declaration of rights, which provides "that the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions free from search or seizure and therefore warrants without oath or affirmation first made, affording sufficient foundation for them and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places or to seize any person or persons, his, her, or their property, not particularly described are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted." ItIs needless to discuss this question. We refer to the case of John Wilkes, of the North Briton, whose house was searched and his papers indiscriminately seized by virtue of a warrant Issued by Lord Halifax, secretary of state. In an action of trespass, Wilkes recovered §1,000 against Wood, one of the parties who made the search, and §4,000 against Lord Halifax. Also to Entiek v. Carrington, 19 How. State Tr. 1029, and Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746. These cases contain the reasoning and conclusions upon this question of the greatest courts of the English-speaking nations. It may be noted in this case that the letter in question was "not particularly described" In the warrant, and by virtue of the warrant the officer had no right to search for or to seize it. The state's attorney claims that the question of an illegal search is not ini issue, for that the objection made on the trial to the admission of the letter was that it was taken at the time of his arrest from his person and against his will, and did not make the objection that it was taken by virtue of a search warrant. The facts appearing that the letter was taken when the officer was engaged in serving the warrant, that the search was made by virtue of the warrant, and that he found the letter when he was making the search, the objection and exception are broad enough to permit the respondent to raise the question of the illegality of the search. State v. Mathers, 64 Vt. 101, 23 Atl. 590, 15 L. R. A. 268, 33 Am. St. Rep. 621, is cited to sustain the claim of the state. That case involved the question of a confidential communication between husband and wife, in the form of a letter which the husband had handed to a third person to...