Oklahoma v Linthicum

Oklahoma v Linthicum
1939 OK CR 127
94 P.2d 857
67 Okl.Cr. 435
Decided: 10/06/1939
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Intoxicating Liquors-Description of Place to Be Searched Merely by Single Street Number Insufficient Where Separate Apartments Occupied. Where place to be searched is described in complaint or affidavit and in search warrant issued thereon by a single street number, without naming the owner or any of the occupants, and two or more families reside in separate apartments therein, a search warrant directing the officers to search the premises designated by such single number is void, since in legal contemplation it describes more than one place.

Page 436

2. Same-Particular Description Required in Affidavit for Search Warrant. A complaint or affidavit for a warrant to search for intoxicating liquor must particularly describe the place to be searched. 37 Okla. St. Ann. § 84.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Oklahoma County; Chas. W. Conner, Judge.

Roy Linthicum was informed against for illegal possession of whisky, and from an order sustaining a motion to suppress evidence on a question of law reserved, the State appeals. Affirmed.

Lewis R. Morris, Co. Atty., and Phil E. Daugherty, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Oklahoma City, for the State.

Joe Adwon and Don Cameron, both of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

DOYLE, P. J. This is an appeal taken by the state from the common pleas court of Oklahoma county, upon a question of law reserved by the state for decision of this court in the trial of one Roy Linthicum, who by information filed in said court September 20, 1937, was charged with the illegal possession of half a pint of tax paid whisky, in said county on September 18, 1937.

When the case was called for trial the defendant interposed motion to suppress the evidence. Upon the hearing had the trial court sustained the motion, to which the state excepted, and from said ruling and order of said court an appeal was perfected by filing in this court on April 20, 1938, petition in error with case-made.

No briefs have been filed, apparently for the reason that in the companion case of Linthicum v. State, 66 Okla. Cr. 327, 92 P.2d 381, the question was answered, wherein this court held:

"Where place to be searched is described in complaint or affidavit and in search warrant issued thereon by a single street number, without naming the owner or any of the occupants, and two or more families reside in

Page 437

separate apartments therein, a search warrant directing the officers to search the premises designated by such single number is void, since in legal contemplation it describes more than one place."