State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 14 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 50866,No. 1,50866,1 |
| Citation | 391 S.W.2d 929 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bill Frank TAYLOR, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Martin M. Lipsitz, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, O. Hampton Stevens, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Richard E. Graulich, Anthony J. Romano, Romano & Graulich, Kansas City, for appellant.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Bill Frank Taylor was convicted by a jury of the felony of receiving stolen property of a value greater than $50. He was fined $1,000 and sentenced to imprisonment for one year in the Jackson County jail. Sections 560.270 and 560.161, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. His sole contention is that the court erred in not sustaining his motion to quash search warrant and suppress evidence.
At the hearing on the motion to quash and suppress, the evidence included defendant's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, each of which consisted of a complaint, a search warrant, and a return and inventory. The complaints were alike as were the search warrants, except that each exhibit described different stolen personal property and places to be searched. Representative is Exhibit 3:
County of Jackson,} §§
Billy J. Witcig, being duly sworn, deposes and states that certain personal property, to-wit: Men's clothing, consisting of (35) top coats; (24) sport coats; (24) student's suits; (139) dress suits; and Ladies clothing, consisting of, (7) coats and (9) Carcoats. Clothing bears following labels, Westerfield, Royal Hall, University Hall, Golden Emblem, & the Robert Hall label itself, also Harris Tweed, Cereni, Jane Hunter and Lady Lucy labels of the goods and chattels of Robert Halls Clothes, Inc. s/ Billy J. Witcig
has been heretofore unlawfully stolen, and that said property is now being held and kept at the following place in the said county and state, to-wit: A grey one-story frame house, with a blue composition roof, and a basement, at 5409 Laurel, in Raytown, Jackson County, Missouri. Wherefore complainant prays that a search warrant be issued as provided by law.
'Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of December, 1962.
s/ John H. Lucas
'SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORIZING SEARCH FOR STOLEN PROPERTY
(Complaint under Form No. 37)
'STATE OF MISSOURI
COUNTY OF JACKSON} §§
'THE STATE OF MISSOURI TO ANY PEACE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI
'WHEREAS a complaint in writing, duly verified by oath, has been filed with the undersigned Judge of this court, stating that heretofore the following described personal property, to-wit:
'Men's clothing, consisting of (35) top coats; (24) sport coats; (24) student's suits; (139) dress suits; and Ladies clothing, consisting of, (7) coats; and (9) Car-Coats. Clothing bears following labels, Westerfield, Royal Hall, University Hall, Golden Emblem, & the Robert Hall label itself, also Harris Tweed, Cereni, Jane Hunter and Lady Lucy labels of the goods and property and chattels of Robert Halls Clothes, Inc., 1203 North 7th St., Kansas City, Kansas has been unlawfully stolen, and it further appears from the allegations of said complaint that said property is being kept or held in this county and state at and in: A grey one-story frame house, with a blue composition roof, and a basement, at 5409 Laurel, in Raytown, Jackson County, Missouri.
'NOW THEREFORE, These are to command you that you search the said premi(ses) above described within 10 days after the issueance of this warrant by day or night, and take with you, if need be, the power of your county, and, if said above described property, or any part thereof be found on said premises by you, that you seize the same and take same into your possession, making a complete and accurate inventory of the property so taken by you in the presence of the person from whose possession the same is taken, if that be possible, and giving to such person a receipt for such property, together with a copy of this warra(nt) or, if no person be found in possession of said property, leaving said receipt and said copy upon the premises searched, and that you thereafter return the property so taken and seized by you, together with a duly verified copy of the inventory thereof and with your return to this warrant to this court to be herein dealt with in accordance with law.
'WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT ON THIS eleventh DAY OF December, 1962.
Criminal Rule 33.01(a) V.A.M.R. provides: 'If a complaint in writing be filed with the judge or magistrate of any court having original jurisdiction to try criminal offenses stating that personal property (1) which has been stolen or embezzled, or (2) the seizure of which under search warrant is now or may hereafter be authorized by any statute of this State, is being held or kept at any place or in any building, boat, vessel, car, train, wagon, aircraft, motor vehicle or other vehicle or upon any person within the territorial jurisdiction of such judge or magistrate, and if such complaint be verified by the oath or affirmation of the complainant and states such facts positively and not upon information or belief; or if the same be supported by written affidavits verified by oath or affirmation stating evidential facts from which such judge or magistrate determines the existence of probable cause, then such judge or magistrate shall issue a search warrant directed to any peace officer commanding him to search the place therein described and to seize and bring before such judge or magistrate the personal property therein described.' (Italics added.)
Appellant contends that the italicized portion of the Rule 'is unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America, and Section 15, Article I of the Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S. as there was no proper showing of probable cause for the procurement of the search warrant; there was no showing that any oral statements made by the applicant * * * was (sic) reduced to writing and verified by the applicant; there was no written affidavit signed by the applicant; nor was there any showing the affiant was sworn by the Judge * * *, nor any showing that the informant was reliable.'
The Rule contains two situations in which a search warrant shall issue. The first situation exists upon the filing of a complaint for search warrant which is verified by oath or affirmation of the complainant and which states facts positively and not upon information or belief. The second situation exists when the complaint is supported by written affidavits stating evidential facts from which the judge determines probable cause. In the first situation, the verified statement of positive facts empowers the court to issue the search warrant; in the second, the court determines probable cause for issuance of the warrant from the facts contained in the complaint and from the affidavits or other evidence submitted to support the complaint. We are dealing here with the first situation only.
The complaint here is written and shows on its face to have been signed by the complainant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wing
...from the facts contained in the complaint and from the affidavits or other evidence submitted to support the complaint.' State v. Taylor, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 929, 932. These situations were demonstrated in State v. Lock, 302 Mo. 400, 259 S.W. 116, where the complaint for search warrant read: "I......
-
State v. Hunt
...the facts contained in the complaint and from the affidavits or other evidence submitted to support the complaint. * * *' State v. Taylor, Mo.Sup., 391 S.W.2d 929, 932. State v. Taylor involved a search warrant issued on an application verified by affidavit which stated positively that cert......
-
State v. Woods
...the exercise of his legal right to remain silent. Articles claimed as being owned by defendant were not seized by the officers. In State v. Taylor, supra, the Court held that although the jury did not believe the defendant's explanation of how he happened to come into possession of question......