Alkire v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Alkire v. State

1931 OK CR 351, 2 P.2d 98, 51 Okla. Crim. 410, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 342

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 31, 1931

DocketNo. A-7958.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1931 OK CR 351 (Alkire v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alkire v. State, 1931 OK CR 351, 2 P.2d 98, 51 Okla. Crim. 410, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 342 (Okla. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Kay county of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $150, and to serve 90 days in the county jail.

At the time charged, certain officers with a search warrant searched the residence of defendant and found about three gallons of whisky. A motion to suppress the evidence was interposed and overruled. The motion was based on the fact that the affidavit for search warrant described an apartment at 735% North Peachtree street, in Ponca City. The search warrant issued on this application described the place to be searched as 735% Peachtree street. The officers’ return is that they searched the place described in the warrant, i. e., Peach-tree street.

*411 It is well settled that a search warrant must conform to the affidavit. Thomas v. State, 38 Okla. Cr. 284, 260 Pac. 515. The provisions of section 7012, Comp. St. 1921, are as follows:

“No- (search) warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation describing as particularly as may be the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”

An affidavit for a warrant to search a place on North Peachtree street will not support a warrant to search a place on Peachtree street.

The warrant must describe the premises as described in the affidavit and with such particularity that the officer to whom it is directed has no- discretion as to- the place to be searched, but can ascertain the place from the warrant. Smith v. State, 40 Okla. Cr. 366, 269 Pac. 376; Abbott v. State, 44 Okla. Cr. 455, 281 Pac. 597; Tucker v. State, 45 Okla. Cr. 68, 281 Pac. 818; Doyle v. State, 49 Okla. Cr. 422, 295 Pac 237.

The case is reversed.

DAYENPOET, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Kay county of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $150, and to serve 90 days in the county jail.

At the time charged, certain officers with a search warrant searched the residence of defendant and found about three gallons of whisky. A motion to suppress the evidence was interposed and overruled. The motion was based on the fact that the affidavit for search warrant described an apartment at 735% North Peachtree street, in Ponca City. The search warrant issued on this application described the place to be searched as 735% Peachtree street. The officers’ return is that they searched the place described in the warrant, i. e., Peach-tree street.

*411 It is well settled that a search warrant must conform to the affidavit. Thomas v. State, 38 Okla. Cr. 284, 260 Pac. 515. The provisions of section 7012, Comp. St. 1921, are as follows:

“No- (search) warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation describing as particularly as may be the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”

An affidavit for a warrant to search a place on North Peachtree street will not support a warrant to search a place on Peachtree street.

The warrant must describe the premises as described in the affidavit and with such particularity that the officer to whom it is directed has no- discretion as to- the place to be searched, but can ascertain the place from the warrant. Smith v. State, 40 Okla. Cr. 366, 269 Pac. 376; Abbott v. State, 44 Okla. Cr. 455, 281 Pac. 597; Tucker v. State, 45 Okla. Cr. 68, 281 Pac. 818; Doyle v. State, 49 Okla. Cr. 422, 295 Pac 237.

The case is reversed.

DAYENPOET, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK CR 351, 2 P.2d 98, 51 Okla. Crim. 410, 1931 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alkire-v-state-oklacrimapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack