State v. Heckstall
This text of 150 S.E.2d 213 (State v. Heckstall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The search warrant was based on a proper affidavit of the officer who stated that he had information from three previously reliable sources that on that day Felix Heckstall had whisky in his house and had sold whisky to numerous persons on Friday and Saturday nights; that affiant has “personally seen crowds *209 accumulating, and numerous vehicles going to and from Felix Heck-stall’s house on Friday and Saturday nights.”
The warrant gave the officers authority to search the described premises. Hence the right to make a reasonable search did not depend on anyone’s consent. It was the duty of the officers to disclose their authority to the owner, or to the person in charge, before beginning the search in order that they might escape treatment as trespassers. The officers fulfilled the requirement when they read the warrant to the only member of the household present — the owner’s granddaughter.
The evidence discovered as the result of the search was properly admitted. It was sufficient to warrant the verdict and the judgment. The defendant’s assignments of error are not sustained.
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
150 S.E.2d 213, 268 N.C. 208, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heckstall-nc-1966.