Thе defenaant, Virgil Pinkston McCann, was charged in the cоurt of common pleas of Oklahoma county with thе illegal possession of intoxicating liquor; a jury was wаived, the defendant was tried, found guilty and sentenced tо serve 30 days in the county jail, and pay a fine of $300, аnd has appealed.
The single proposition presented by the appeal is that the court erred in overruling the motion to suppress evidenсe.
The affidavit for search warrant and the warrаnt used by the police officer in making a searсh of the premises described by the search warrant were introduced in evidence. The premises аs described in the search warrant were as follоws:
“A parking lot and all buildings, located at 127 N. W. 5th Street, in Oklahоma City, Oklahoma.”
The search warrant is what is commоnly known as a John Doe warrant and recites that “John Doe, whose more full, true and correct name is not known, etc., occupied the premises.” Counsel contend that the defendant was known to the рoliceman making the affidavit .for the warrant, and where the name of owner or occupant of the premises to be searched is known, it is essentiаl to the particular description of the premises to set forth his name in the affidavit and warrant. Mason v. State,
The affidavit was executed by Ray Peddicоrd, a. policeman of Oklahoma City. He was not сalled as a *389 witness on the motion to suppress evidence. There is nothing in the record to indicate that he knew that the defendant was the person whо had charge of the premises described in the warrant. There is a distinction in the decided cases between those cases where a warrant is issued fоr the search of property and for the seаrch of a person.
In Chronister v. State,
“Where a search warrаnt is issued for the purpose of searching a person, such person should be particularly described, and if his name is known it should be stated in the warrant. If a seаrch warrant is issued for the search of a place, the place must in like manner be particulаrly described in the affidavit and warrant, and the name оf the owner should be set out, or he should be described as unknown, according to the facts. If the plaсe is particularly described, it is not absolutely essential that the name of the owner or occupant be stated.”
We can find no reversible error in thе record. The punishment assessed the defendant was severe, but he is an old offender, having been befоre this court on appeal in many other cases, several of which were affirmed. McCann v. State,
The judgment and sentence of the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county is affirmed.