Carignano v. StateCarignano v. State
This аppeal is from a judgment of conviction rendered on the verdict of a jury finding the defendant guilty of unlawful рossession of intoxicating liquors, and assessing his punishment at a fine of $250 and confinement for 90 days in the county jail.
A number of errors are assigned and argued, but one of which was deemed necessary to notice, and that is that the court erred in admitting evidence obtаined by *229 unlawful search and seizure, under a search warrant illegally issued.
The undisputed facts are that the defendant was engaged in the general mercantile business on the south side of Main street in the city of Wilburton, ■ аnd resided in a building adjoining; that on the day alleged, in the absence of the defendant, his wife being in charge оf their store, Austin Parks, under-sheriff with two deputy sheriffs, went to the stоre and under authority of a search warrant seаrched the premises for intoxicating liquors, securing а pint and a half of whisky, ten bottles of vino vitse, and a bоttle of wine of pepsin.
On the objections of thе defendant the trial court held that the search wаrrant was illegal because the affidavit upon which it was issued was insufficient, but allowed the evidence оf the liquor found and seized to be admitted.
The defendant was not present when the place was searched, and it does not appear that his wife mаde objection to the search of the premises by the officers.
In the case of Amos v. United States,
“The constitutional rights of a person to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and self-crimi-nation were not waived when his wife admitted to his home federal officers, who came without warrant, demanding admission to make search of it under government authority, even аssuming that it is possible for a wife, in the absence of hеr husband, thus to waive his constitutional rights, since, under the implied coercion here presented, no such wаiver was intended or effected.”
It is the well-settled doctrine in this state that evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure is not admissible in evidence agаinst an accused where timely objections are made to the introduction of such evidence sо illegally ob
*230
tained, and that the same rule will apрly to objections made to oral testimony of thе officers relating to such illegal search and seizure. Gore v. State,
It appearing that all the stаte’s evidence in this case was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure and contrary to Const. art. 2, § 30, and that the same was improperly admitted against the defendant in violation of his rights under Const. art. 2, § 21, the judgment appealed from will be reversed and the cause remanded with direction to discharge the defendant.