The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was сonvicted in the county court of Okmulgee county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to serve 30 dаys in the county jail.
The record discloses that, at the time charged, certain officers with a search warrant went to the residence of defendant. No one was at the рlace, and the officers unlocked the door with a pass-key and found a considerable quantity of beer and winе. They served a warrant by leaving a copy on a tablе in the house.
It is argued that the search was invalid for the reason that the entering of the house was unlawful. Section 2883, Comр. St. 1921, referring to search warrants, provides :
“The officer may break open an outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of the house, or anything therein, to еxecute the warrant, if, after notice of his authority and рurpose he be refused admittance.”
■Section 7009, Comр. St. 1921, providing the manner of service of search warrants is in part:
“i:‘ * * A copy of said warrant shall be served upon the person or persons found in possession of any such liquor, furniture or fixtures so seized, and if no person.be found in the possession thereof, a copy of said warrant shall be pоsted on the door of the building or room wherein the same аre found.”
Since the provisions of the law as to search warrants are drastic in their nature and the restrictions imposed
*30
are intended to preserve the sanctity of the home, the officer attempting to serve a search warrant should carefully observe these restrictions of law. Hоwever, the law does not require the doing of useless things in order to comply literally with the terms of a statute. It is obvious that аn officer armed with a search warrant is not required to demand entrance into a house when no one is there оn whom demand could be made. There are few authorities upon this point. In Androscoggin R. Co. v. Richards,
Where an officer is armed with a valid search warrant authorizing the search of а house, and no one is present therein of whom he may demand entrance, he is well within his rights in unlocking the door to enter thе building. There appears to have been no objeсtion to the manner of service of the search warrаnt by leaving a copy on the table instead of posting on the door as required by statute.
The case is affirmed.