State v. Stogsdill
| Decision Date | 03 September 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 4281.,4281. |
| Parties | STATE v. STOGSDILL. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Texas County; W. E. Barton, Judge.
Mart Stogsdill was convicted for illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed, and defendant discharged.
Hiett, Lamar & Covert, of Houston, for appellant.
Raymond G. Corbett, Pros. Atty., of Houston, for the State.
From a conviction upon a charge of illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, defendant appealed.
The evidence on the part of the state was obtained by the sheriff while serving a search warrant. A motion to quash this search warrant and suppress the evidence obtained by the officer serving it was made before the trial began and overruled. The only question we are called upon to decide is whether or not the search warrant was valid. The objection made to it is that the place to be searched is not as definitely described as Is required by our Constitution and the statute. The Constitution (section 11, art. 2) requires the place to be searched to be described in the warrant "as nearly as may be." The statute (Acts 1923, p. 244, § 25) uses the same language. The description in this warrant of the place to be searched is as follows:
"The premises on which Mart Stogsdill's residence is located, being a tract of 40 acres of land described as the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 20, township 31, range 9, in Texas county, Mo., and in the residence and outbuildings located thereon (said premises being the usual place of residence of Mart Stogsdill)."
On the hearing of the motion to suppress, it was shown that the residence of Mart Stogsdill was not on the 40 acres described in the search warrant, but was about a mile distant therefrom. That being true, the best we can do for the state is to treat the description of the 40 acres as surplusage, and with that eliminated the description of the 81.) place remaining is "the premises on which Mart Stogsdill's residence is located, * * * in Texas county, Mo. (said premises being the usual place of residence of Mart Stogsdill)." The Supreme Court by whose decisions we are bound has held a similar description in a search warrant not sufficient. In State v. Lock, 302 Mo. 400, 420, 421, 259 S. W. 116, 123, we find the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Park
...Mo. 348; State v. Lock, 302 Mo. 400; State v. Tunnell, 302 Mo. 433; State v. Rebasti, 267 S.W. 858; State v. Reis, 268 S.W. 391; State v. Stogsdill, 297 S.W. 977. (a) The search warrant did not describe the place to be searched. (b) The search authorized was unreasonable as applied to the p......
-
State v. Park
...Mo. 348; State v. Lock, 302 Mo. 400; State v. Tunnell, 302 Mo. 433; State v. Rebasti, 267 S.W. 858; State v. Reis, 268 S.W. 391; State v. Stogsdill, 297 S.W. 977. (a) search warrant did not describe the place to be searched. (b) The search authorized was unreasonable as applied to the prope......
- State v. Bauer
-
State v. Bauer and De Bartalo
...barns, chicken house on same." Such description is insufficient. State v. Lock, 259 S.W. 124; Smith v. McDuffy, 72 Ore. 276; State v. Stogsgill, 297 S.W. 977. (b) The fact relied upon to constitute a probable cause for the search of the residence is that N.C. Eaves, a deputy sheriff, when h......