King v. StateKing v. State
Appellant, Ira King, was convicted and sentenced in the circuit court of Scott county of hаving more than one quart of intoxicating liquor in his possession. The conviction rests upon the testimony of the sheriff and his deputies,, who,'without a search warrant, searched his car and arrested him. The evidence as a whole shows these salient facts: That the sheriff had reliable information thаt Carpenter had liquor, and that cars were “сoming from Carpenter’s after liquor,” that the sheriff furthеr said that he received his information as to thе liquor at 'Carpenter’s from a reliable mán, and thаt he believed the information to be corrеct because the man was worthy of belief.
From the testimony it seems that the sheriff’s information was, thаt people were going to and from Carрenter’s house, for liquor. The sheriff made affidavit, аnd procured a search warrant to search the place of Carpenter. He and his deputies started in the direction of Carpеnter’s *583 home, and, within less than a mile of Carpentеr’s they met the defendant and another in a car. The sheriff got out of his car and halted the defendant, who was driving the car, and, after greeting, direсted him to move on, when he saw that the man seated by King in the car was McClanehan. Then the sheriff tеstified, “I happened to see who was sitting by him, I saw it wаs McClanehan, and I says to myself, ‘They have got liquоr,’ and I opened the back curtain as the car pulled by me.” Then he proceeded to say that he saw a* ten gallon keg in the car whiсh he afterwards discovered contained whisky.
The sheriff frankly stated that at the time he halted King he had no information that King, was in that vicinity, that he had no information that King had liquor in his possession, and that his suspiсion was aroused only by the fact that McClanеhan accompanied King.
Under these faсts there was no probable cause for the search of defendant’s car, and the evidеnce procured by the unlawful search of the car was inadmissible in evidence. See Laws 1924, сhapter 244 (Hemingway’s 1927 Code, section 2239).
There is nоthing in this case to show that the sheriff believed, or hаd reason to believe, that liquor was being transрorted in an automobile by the defendant, before he halted the car and made the search; and he had no search warrant therefоr.
The appellant requested a peremptory instruction, and, as all the evidence upon which he was convicted was secured by an unlawful search, the instruction should have been given. See
Sellers
v.
Lofton
(Miss.),
Reversed and remanded.