Miles v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Miles v. State

1925 OK CR 192, 235 P. 261, 30 Okla. Crim. 60, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 207

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 11, 1925

DocketNo. A-4780.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 192 (Miles 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

Miles v. State, 1925 OK CR 192, 235 P. 261, 30 Okla. Crim. 60, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 207 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error in this case was tried in the municipal criminal court of the city of Tulsa, on a charge of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and upon conviction was fined the sum of $500 and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for a term of six months. It is a companion case with No. A-4779, and all the evidence is substantially the same except that in this case only one witness testified for the state and none for the plaintiff in error, and is to the effect that the witness in question, a member of the police detective force of the city of Tulsa, without a warrant, searched the person of the plaintiff in error and found a bottle of whisky in his hip pocket. This constituted an unreasonable search of *61 the person, and was a violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiff in error, and, for the reasons assigned in the case of Miles v. State, No. A-4779, 30 Okla. Cr. 54, 235 P. 260, just decided, the case is reversed and remanded.

BESSEY, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

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

EDWARDS, J.

The plaintiff in error in this case was tried in the municipal criminal court of the city of Tulsa, on a charge of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and upon conviction was fined the sum of $500 and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for a term of six months. It is a companion case with No. A-4779, and all the evidence is substantially the same except that in this case only one witness testified for the state and none for the plaintiff in error, and is to the effect that the witness in question, a member of the police detective force of the city of Tulsa, without a warrant, searched the person of the plaintiff in error and found a bottle of whisky in his hip pocket. This constituted an unreasonable search of *61 the person, and was a violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiff in error, and, for the reasons assigned in the case of Miles v. State, No. A-4779, 30 Okla. Cr. 54, 235 P. 260, just decided, the case is reversed and remanded.

BESSEY, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 192, 235 P. 261, 30 Okla. Crim. 60, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack