Loveless v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Loveless v. State

1929 OK CR 7, 273 P. 288, 41 Okla. Crim. 321, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 155

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 5, 1929

DocketNo. A-6382.

StatusPublished

This text of 1929 OK CR 7 (Loveless 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

Loveless v. State, 1929 OK CR 7, 273 P. 288, 41 Okla. Crim. 321, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 155 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county, of attempting to manufacture whisky, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $250, and confinement in the county jail for 90 days. Before entering upon the trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence, for the reason that it had been obtained by an unlawful search, which motion was overruled and exceptions saved.

The record discloses that certain officers went to the private residence of the defendant, and made a search of the premises, claiming to have found a still, some barrels, mash, and a small quantity of whisky. The affidavit for the search warrant states that it is made on information, belief, and advice. The search warrant is invalid, and evidence procured by such invalid search warrant is incompetent. The motion to suppress the evidence should have been sustained. Myers et ux. v. State, 38 Okla. Cr. 287, 260 P. 515.

The case is reversed and remanded.

DOYLE, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

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

DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county, of attempting to manufacture whisky, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $250, and confinement in the county jail for 90 days. Before entering upon the trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence, for the reason that it had been obtained by an unlawful search, which motion was overruled and exceptions saved.

The record discloses that certain officers went to the private residence of the defendant, and made a search of the premises, claiming to have found a still, some barrels, mash, and a small quantity of whisky. The affidavit for the search warrant states that it is made on information, belief, and advice. The search warrant is invalid, and evidence procured by such invalid search warrant is incompetent. The motion to suppress the evidence should have been sustained. Myers et ux. v. State, 38 Okla. Cr. 287, 260 P. 515.

The case is reversed and remanded.

DOYLE, P. J., and EDWARDS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 7, 273 P. 288, 41 Okla. Crim. 321, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loveless-v-state-oklacrimapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack