Searcy v. State

1926 OK CR 103, 244 P. 203, 33 Okla. Crim. 421, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 96
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided March 20, 1926·No. No. A-5444.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Under authority of a search warrant, certain officers forced an entrance into the private residence of the defendant and found in a jar in the kitchen cupboard of defendant less than one-half pint of whis-ky. There was no evidence of a sale or an attempt to sell whisky. No evidence was offered tending to show that this residence was a place of public resort, a. hotel, a. rooming house, or a place of storage. A search of a private residence under such circumstances is an unreasonable search, within the meaning both of the state and federal Constitutions touching upon that point, and contrary to section 7013, Comp. Stat. 1921.

The defendant objected to the introduction of this, *422 evidence by timely motion to exclude. This motion should have been sustained. Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to establish illegal intent.

The cause is reversed, with instructions to dismiss.

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

Searcy v. State, 1926 OK CR 103, 244 P. 203, 33 Okla. Crim. 421, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 96 (Okla. Ct. App. 1926).

1926 OK CR 103 (Searcy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peters v. State
1941 OK CR 16 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1941)
Oliver v. State
1927 OK CR 327 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1927)