Oklahoma v Bayliff

Oklahoma v Bayliff
1936 OK CR 85
60 P.2d 402
59 Okl.Cr. 381
Decided: 08/21/1936
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Process -- Mandatory That Process Run in Name of State. The provisions of article 7, section 19, of the Constitution, and section 19, O.S. 1931, requiring that process shall run in the name of the state of Oklahoma, are mandatory.

2. Intoxicating Liquors -- Evidence -- Search Warrant not Running in Name of State Properly Quashed and Evidence Suppressed. In a prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor, where the search warrant does not run in the name of the state, the court properly sustained the motion of the defendant in quashing the search warrant and suppressing the evidence.

Page 382

Appeal from County Court, Alfalfa County; Loyd W. Hadwiger, Judge.

Proceeding by the State against Gurney Bayliff. From a judgment quashing a search warrant and suppressing the evidence, the State appeals. Affirmed.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and O. Mark Ginder, Co. Atty., for the State.

H.W. Wright, for defendant in error.

DAVENPORT, J. This is an appeal by the state from a ruling by the trial court wherein the court held that the search warrant upon which the officers acted in making a search was void, for the reason that it did not run in the name of the state of Oklahoma; the caption of the search warrant held void by the trial court being as follows: "In the name of Alfalfa County, Oklahoma. Search Warrant."

Then the direction in the warrant reads as follows:

"To the Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff of Alfalfa County, Oklahoma."

The caption of the warrant fixes the venue in the case, but nowhere does the warrant run in the name of the state of Oklahoma to any officer (naming them) of Alfalfa county. Article 7, section 19, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, provides that the style of all writs and processes shall be: "The State of Oklahoma."

All prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by the authority of the state of Oklahoma. All indictments, informations, and complaints shall include, "against the peace and dignity of the State." Section 19, O.S. 1931, provides:

Page 383

"The style of all process shall be 'The State of Oklahoma.' It shall be under the seal of the court from whence the same shall issue, shall be signed by the clerk, and dated the day it is issued."

The provisions of article 7, section 19, of the Constitution, and section 19, O.S. 1931, requiring that process shall run in the name of the state of Oklahoma, is mandatory. A search warrant is process within the meaning of article 7, section 19, of the Constitution, and section 19, O.S. 1931, and must run in the name of the state of Oklahoma. Dunn v. State, 40 Okla. Cr. 76, 267 Pac. 279; Myers v. State, 40 Okla. Cr. 170, 267 Pac. 867; Murray v. State, 47 Okla. Cr. 219, 287 Pac. 781; Bishop v. State, 47 Okla. Cr. 249, 288 Pac. 363.

The search warrant in this case does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the laws of the state of Oklahoma, and the ruling of the trial court in quashing the same and dismissing the case against the defendant was proper.