Pickett v. State

25 S.E. 608, 99 Ga. 12
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 16, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 25 S.E. 608 (Pickett v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pickett v. State, 25 S.E. 608, 99 Ga. 12 (Ga. 1896).

Opinion

Lumpkin, Justice.

1. While, under section 4723 of the code, an officer may, without a warrant, make an arrest for an offense committed in his presence, he has no authority, upon bare suspicion or upon mere information derived from others, to arrest a citizen and search his person in order to ascertain whether or not he is carrying a concealed weapon in violation of law. The constitution of this State expressly declares in the bill of rights that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Code, §5008. If any search is unreasonable and obnoxious to our fundamental law, it is one of the kind with which we are now dealing. Even if the person arrested did in fact have a pistol concealed about his person, the fact not being discoverable without a search, 'the offense of thus carrying it was not, in legal contemplation, committed in the presence of the officer, and 'the laltter violated a sacred constitutional right of the citizen in assuming to exercise a pretended authority to search his person in order to expose his suspected criminality.

2. It appears from the evidence that shots were exchanged between the officer and the accused, who was the person sought to be arrested and subjected to search. The latter was indicted and tried for assault with intent to murder. It was a contested issue of fact as to who fired the first shot. The court, in its charge, gave the instruction quoted in the second head-note, the error of which is obvious, for the reason that it eliminated altogether from consideration all question of justification on the part of the accused. The court, by this charge, assumed that the accused was inevitably guilty of some offense; whereas, under [16]*16the evidence 'as it appears in the record, this was & matter for the jury to determine. Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Raif v. State
136 S.E.2d 169 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
State v. Duren
123 N.W.2d 624 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1963)
State v. Hoover
347 P.2d 69 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
Crosby v. State
110 S.E.2d 94 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Yancey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of NY
100 S.E.2d 653 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Hendrix v. State
22 S.E.2d 183 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
State v. McBride
37 S.W.2d 423 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1931)
Brown v. United States
47 F.2d 681 (Fifth Circuit, 1931)
Copeland v. Dunehoo
138 S.E. 267 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Morgan v. State
151 N.E. 98 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1926)
Orick v. State
105 So. 465 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1925)
Paramore v. State
129 S.E. 772 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Moore v. State
103 So. 483 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1925)
Bolt v. United States
2 F.2d 922 (D.C. Circuit, 1924)
State v. Gartland
263 S.W. 165 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)
Batts v. State
144 N.E. 23 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1924)
People v. Kamhout
198 N.W. 831 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1924)
State v. Lock
259 S.W. 116 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)
People v. De Cesare
190 N.W. 302 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
State v. Gulczynski
120 A. 88 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 S.E. 608, 99 Ga. 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickett-v-state-ga-1896.