In Re Walters

47 S.E.2d 709, 229 N.C. 111, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 424

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: May 19, 1948
• Status: Published

Opinion

Barnhill, J.

This case is not one to call forth any extended discussion of the law of contempt. It is charged that respondent committed an indirect or constructive contempt which is an act tending “to degrade the court or obstruct, interrupt, prevent, or embarrass the administration of justice.” 12 A. J., 391.

There are circumstances under which the wilful interference with, or hindrance of, an officer in his attempt to serve process constitutes a contempt of the court issuing the process. 12 A. J., 407; Anno. 39 A. L. R., 1354. But no such circumstances appear in this record. All that respondent did was to decline to permit officers of the law to enter his home in the nighttime, without a search warrant, to search for a third party upon whom they desired to serve civil process, when it is not made to appear that the third party was either an inmate of or was present in his home at the time.

Ordinarily even the strong arm of the law may not reach across the threshold of one’s dwelling and invade the sacred precinct of his home except under authority of a search warrant issued in accord with pertinent statutory provisions. G. S., 15-25 et seq. N. C. Const., Art. I, sec. 15; U. S. Const., Amend. IV. While there are exceptions to the rule, this is not one of them. Hence the officers wisely refrained from forcing their way into respondent’s abiding place over his protest and objection. Johnson v. U. S., L. Ed., Advance Opinions, Vol. 92, No. 8, decided 2 February 1948.

“The world has nothing to bestow;

From our own selves our joys must flow,

And that dear hut, our home.”

The respondent, in exercising a privilege vested in every citizen to choose those who shall come, or be forbidden to enter, within the confines of his dwelling, violated no law. Nor did his conduct constitute an unlawful or unwarranted interference with the administration of justice. In no sense was it contumacious. lie may not now be punished therefor through the extraordinary prerogative writ of contempt. N. C. Const., Art. I, sec. 15; Brewer v. Wynne, 163 N. C., 319, 79 S. E., 629.

Furthermore, the summons was issued 14 November. The officers were attempting to serve it on 1 December, more than 10 days after its issuance and at a time when it should have been returned to the clerk with notation of nonservice. G. S., 1-89. The nature of the order dated 1 December, which the officer testified he had in hand for service, is not disclosed. In any event, it was issued without notice in a cause where summons had not been served and after the time for service thereof had expired.

The judgment below is

Reversed.