Opinion
No. 35897.
November 12, 1945.
1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
Search warrant describing location to be searched as dwelling house, outhouses on premises occupied by named individual on place of another named individual "on cross roads 2 miles south of Soreby's Store in 2nd. house on left side of road" was sufficient where it enabled officer to locate place to be searched (Code 1942, sec. 2617; Const. 1890, sec. 23).
2. CRIMINAL LAW.
In prosecution for possessing integral parts of a distillery, where description of search warrant was sufficient and parts of distillery were in possession of defendant at place described, evidence procured by authority of the search warrant was admissible (Code 1942, sec. 2632).
APPEAL from the circuit court of Copiah county, HON. J.F. GUYNES, Judge.
J.H. Garth, of Hazlehurst, and H.C. Stringer, of Jackson, for appellant.
The affidavit for the search warrant and the warrant are void for the reason that the writing is not legible.
The search warrant is void for the lack of specific location of appellant's premises.
Miller v. State, 129 Miss. 774, 93 So. 2; Code of 1930, Sec. 1978, Code of 1942, Sec. 2617; Constitution of 1890, Sec. 23.
Laws authorizing searches and seizures are to be strictly construed against the state.
Turner v. State, 133 Miss. 738, 98 So. 240; Livelar v. State, 98 Miss. 330, 53 So. 681.
The statute is mandatory as to what the affidavit shall contain.
Turner v. State, supra; Bouchillon v. State, 179 Miss. 791, 177 So. 34; Simmons v. State, 179 Miss. 713, 176 So. 726; Bradley v. State, 134 Miss. 20, 98 So. 458; Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 211, 90 So. 845; Miller v. State, supra; Butler v. State, 129 Miss. 778, 93 So. 3; Taylor v. State, 129 Miss. 815, 93 So. 355; Giles v. United States, 284 F. 208.
Greek L. Rice, Attorney General, by R.O. Arrington, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
The assignments of error argued are: first, that the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant are void for the reason that the writing is not legible; and, second, that the search warrant was insufficient in that it failed to specifically designate the appellant's premises.
The original affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant appear in the record and an examination of them shows that the appellant's argument is not well founded as the writing is well above the average. It will also be observed that the clerk, who copied the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant, had no trouble whatever copying them. Counsel complains that it could not be easily read by the officers serving same. A sufficient answer to this contention is that it was read by the officer.
Our Court has held in a number of cases that an affidavit and search warrant describing the premises with sufficient definiteness to enable an officer to locate and the occupant to know the place to be searched is sufficient. In the case at bar, the officer testified that he found the premises by following the directions in the warrant. The lower court ruled in part on the objection to the warrant, "The Court is further of the opinion that the affidavit for the search warrant, together with the warrant offered in evidence, which the witness says he acted under, was sufficient authority to authorize the search of the premises, and the motion is overruled." There was no evidence to the contrary as the appellant did not testify, neither did any other witness in his behalf.
The search warrant is styled "State of Mississippi, County of Copiah" and follows the usual style authorizing search ". . . of the dwelling house, outhouses, premises . . . of Gilbert Williams on the place of H.W. Conn on cross roads 2 miles south of Soreby's Store in 2nd house on left side of road in said county . . . and state." This description was sufficient.
See Cangelosi v. State, 172 Miss. 252, 159 So. 846, and authorities cited therein; Collins v. State, 178 Miss. 548, 174 So. 61; Smith v. State, 187 Miss. 96, 192 So. 436.
Appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Copiah County under an indictment charging possession of the integral parts of a distillery. Section 2632, Code 1942.
The evidence was procured by the authority of a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace, and the attack on the judgment of the trial court is largely predicated upon objections to the validity of the search warrant, and admissions of the evidence obtained thereby. The first objection is that the handwriting in the affidavit and the search warrant is illegible so that it was impossible for the officer with certainty to execute it. There is nothing in this contention. The original is filed with the record, and while the chirography is far from Spencerian copy-book style, it is correctly copied in the transcript.
It is next argued that "the delineation of the specific location of the premises to be searched" does not "sufficiently designate the same, so that said description would be free from constitutional objections." The search warrant describes the location to be searched as ". . . in the dwelling house, outhouses . . . on the premises . . . used or occupied by Gilbert Williams on the place of H.W. Conn on cross roads 2 miles south of Soreby's Store in 2nd house on left side of road in said county and state." Section 23 of the Constitution of 1890 requires that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. Section 2617, Code of 1942, authorizes the form of a search warrant, and among other things therein are spaces, in which may be inserted the section, township and range on which the place to be searched is located. The omission so to utilize such spaces forms a substantial part of the gravamen of the complaint against the validity of the search warrant, and consequently the admissibility of the evidence introduced at the trial.
Appellant cites Miller et al. v. State, 129 Miss. 774, 93 So. 2, wherein it was held that a search warrant is void, which does not specifically designate the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized. However, in the case at bar, the officer could and did locate the place to be searched from the description in the search warrant. This is sufficient under such decisions as Cangelosi v. State, 172 Miss. 252, 159 So. 846; Collins v. State, 178 Miss. 548, 174 So. 61; Smith v. State, 187 Miss. 96, 192 So. 436. We have carefully examined the following authorities cited by appellant and do not find them inconsistent with the cases above listed, or in conflict therewith, on the issue here presented: Turner v. State, 133 Miss. 738, 98 So. 240; Livelar v. State, 98 Miss. 330, 53 So. 681; Bouchillon v. State, 179 Miss. 791, 177 So. 34; Simmons v. State, 179 Miss. 713, 176 So. 726; Bradley v. State, 134 Miss. 20, 98 So. 458; Miller et al. v. State, 129 Miss. 774, 93 So. 2; Giles v. United States, 1 Cir., 284 F. 208.
Since the evidence before the jury was obtained at the location described in the search warrant, and the parts of the distillery were in the possession of appellant at said place, and the description was definite enough to meet the requirements of the statute as against the attacks herein made thereon, the evidence was competent and admissible. It justified the verdict of the jury. The appellant-cited cases of Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 211, 90 So. 845, 24 A.L.R. 1377; Butler v. State, 129 Miss. 778, 93 So. 3; Taylor v. State, 129 Miss. 815, 93 So. 355, therefore, need not be discussed in this opinion.
We find no reversible error in the record and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Affirmed.