Searcy v. State
This text of 1926 OK CR 103 (Searcy 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1926 OK CR 103, 244 P. 203, 33 Okla. Crim. 421, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/searcy-v-state-oklacrimapp-1926.