Weldon v. State, 7 Div. 410
| Citation | 97 So.2d 825,39 Ala.App. 286 |
| Decision Date | 13 August 1957 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 410 |
| Parties | Calvin WELDON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
W. M. Beck, Fort Payne, for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Edmon L. Rinehart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State.
This appellant has been found guilty by a jury upon a complaint charging that he did buy, sell, or possess prohibited liquors, etc.
The evidence presented by the State tends to show that on 19 February 1955 Sheriff W. R. Evans, accompanied by two deputies, went to the home of the appellant to search for contraband liquor. The sheriff carried with him a search warrant for the premises.
There can be no doubt that the State's evidence, if believed by the jury under the required rule, was sufficient to show that the defendant did possess moonshine whiskey on that date, provided such evidence was admissible, in view of the effect that must be accorded, Section 210, Title 29, Code of Alabama 1940, (Pocket Part), which section was approved on 12 September 1951.
The pertinent portion of this section provides:
We interpolate here that Section 214, referred to in 210, supra, pertains to the examination of the complainant and witness by a magistrate before issuing a search warrant.
According to Sheriff Evans he and his deputies went to appellant's home just after dark. They waited near the premises, and observed a woman enter the house.
The sheriff went up on the porch of the house, and looking through a window saw the appellant pouring 'liquor' from a jug into a pint bottle.
At this juncture he opened the door and entered the house. The appellant and his wife smashed the jug and bottle. The liquid spilled on the floor as a result of breaking the containers was moonshine whiskey.
Over appellant's objection, appropriately grounded, the search warrant carried by the sheriff was received in evidence. One of the grounds was that the warrant was not executed before 6:00 p. m.
Section 220, Title 29, Code of Alabama 1940, pertaining to the execution of prohibited liquor search warrants specifies that such warrants 'may be executed at any time between eight o'clock in the morning and six o'clock in the afternoon, or at any other time that the place or premises are open.'
The defendant having objected to the introduction of the warrant on the ground that it was not executed before 6 o'clock in the afternoon, the burden was cast upon the State to show that it was timely executed.
In this connection Deputy Joe J. Harris 'wouldn't say what time' the premises were entered.
Deputy Faulkner placed the time of entry 'between sundown and 8 P.M.'
Sheriff Evans testified that it could have been before 6 p. m., and it could have been after 6 p. m.
The sheriff further testified that he had no time to execute the warrant after his entry, but devoted his attention to trying to prevent the destruction of the receptacles.
It is clear that the equivocal nature of the above testimony is insufficient to establish to the required degree that the search warrant was executed at or before the hour of 6 o'clock, conceding that a formal execution by the sheriff was prevented by appellant's efforts to destroy the liquor.
The Attorney General argues however that the premises were 'open,' in that the lights were on in the house, and the appellant, his wife, and another woman were therein, and therefore the premises could be searched after 6 o'clock.
We think 'open,' as used in Section 220, supra, must be construed to mean 'open to the public,' that is business, or quasi business places or premises, or places or premises which have lost their status as private residences by virtue of the use made or permitted. To hold otherwise would do violence to our common law concept that a man's house is his castle. 'It may be a straw built hut, the wind may whistle around it, the rain may enter it, but the King cannot.'
The search warrant must therefore be laid aside in a consideration of this case.
We have not overlooked Section 107, Title 15, Code of Alabama 1940, found in the general provisions relating to search warrants, as distinguished from search warrants for prohibited alcoholic beverages. This section reads:
'It must be executed in the daytime, unless the affidavits state positively that the property is on the person or in the place to be searched, in which case it may be executed at any time of the day or night;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knox v. State
...further an arrest based on such evidence is illegal and no derivative right of search and seizure attaches thereto. See Weldon v. State, 39 Ala.App. 286, 97 So.2d 825. A search of a private residence without a search warrant is unreasonable and not incidental to an arrest when the arrest fo......
-
Brown v. State
...liquor cases, e. g., Green v. State, 38 Ala.App. 189, 79 So.2d 555; Porch v. State, 38 Ala.App. 565, 89 So.2d 694; Weldon v. State, 39 Ala.App. 286, 97 So.2d 825; Dennis v. State, 40 Ala.App. 182, 111 So.2d 21; Thompson v. State, 41 Ala.App. 353, 132 So.2d 386; Beam v. State, 41 Ala.App. 40......
-
Strange v. State
...v. State, 42 Ala.App. 350, 351, 165 So.2d 127 (1964); Edwards v. State, 42 Ala.App. 307, 308, 162 So.2d 894 (1964); Weldon v. State, 39 Ala.App. 286, 97 So.2d 825 (1957). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit construing federal law has similarly enforced warrants limiting......
-
Tyler v. State
...Witnesses for the defense testified that the search did not take place until 6:45 P.M., Central Daylight Saving Time. In Weldon v. State, 39 Ala.App. 286, 97 So.2d 825, we said per Harwood, 'The defendant having objected to the introduction of the warrant on the ground that it was not execu......