(Syllabus.) Same as in case of Joe Quick v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 176, 129 P.2d 604, decided on the 23rd day of September, 1942. 1. Searches and Seizures — If Name of Party Is Known It Should Be Stated in Affidavit and Warrant but Failure to Do so Is not Necessarily Fatal Defect. Where the name of the party is known to the person making an affidavit for the search of one's premises or person, it is the best practice to state the name in the affidavit and warrant.
This court has often approved a search warrant where the person whose place was to be searched was designated "John Doe", and whose more full, true and correct name was unknown. Quick v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 176, 129 P.2d 604: Bowdry v. State, 82 Okla. Cr. 119, 166 P.2d 1018. The fact that the officers were commanded to "make immediate" search of the premises described would not, as argued by defendant, authorize that the search be made prior to service of warrant.
It is our conclusion that if the trial court is to give credence to the testimony of the court's witnesses, that there is an abundance of evidence to sustain the validity of the search for the reason that under their evidence the building was one single unit, a part of which was occupied by the defendant for sleeping purposes, but the whole building was evidently used as a place to carry on his illicit whisky business. Quick v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 176, 129 P.2d 604. In Mitchell v. State, 73 Okla. Cr. 184, 119 P.2d 99, 100, it is stated:
This would be especially true where the warrant is for the search of premises and not that of a person and the premises are sufficiently described in the warrant by other allegations than the name of the owner. Quick v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 176, 129 P.2d 604. The defendant further contends that since the search warrant was for the search of "a one story frame yellow dwelling house and out buildings located * * *," that it did not authorize the search of the trailer in which the whisky was found.
We have often held that the issuance of a John Doe warrant is bad practice, and should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Sanders v. State, 76 Okla. Cr. 6, 133 P.2d 562; Vincent v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 116, 129 P.2d 196; Quick v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 176, 129 P.2d 604; Cook v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 402, 132 P.2d 349. But we have not held that they are void for this reason alone.
Even if the contention of defendant that he lived in the room attached to the filling station was correct, the proof of the state shows that the whole building was being used in the illicit liquor business, and in conformity with many decisions of this court the search would have been valid if the legal description of the premises set forth in the search warrant was correct. In the case of Quick v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 176, 129 P.2d 604, it is stated: "Affidavit for warrant to search described gasoline filling station stated sufficient facts to justify the issuance of warrant though name of occupant of the filling station was given as 'John Doe', where warrant was for purpose of searching the premises, rather than for a search of person of occupant of filling station.