Opinion
No. 29467.
June 1, 1931.
ARREST, CRIMINAL LAW. Arrest and search of defendant without warrant held illegal, in view of surrounding circumstances, rendering evidence obtained inadmissible.
Evidence tended to show that neither sheriff nor his deputy had a warrant for the arrest of the defendant or for a search of his person or possession, and that there were no circumstances at time of defendant's arrest, other than certain information received that the defendant would have liquor in his possession, to indicate to the officers that the defendant at the time had any liquor in his possession.
APPEAL from circuit court of Pearl River county; HON. J.Q. LANGSTON, Judge.
J.M. Morse, of Poplarville, for appellant.
Evidence, which is obtained by an illegal arrest cannot be properly admitted in a liquor prosecution.
Objections were seasonably made to the introduction of any evidence in respect to the liquor because that evidence was discovered as a direct result of an unlawful arrest. Since the trial of the present case in the court below, the supreme court has decided this question in favor of contention of appellant.
Meyers v. State, 130 So. 741.
The error was not cured by an act of appellant as was in case of Goodman v. State, 130 So. 285.
This case must, under Section 23 of the Constitution of 1890, state of Mississippi, be reversed and the appellant discharged.
Eugene B. Ethridge, Special Agent, for the state.
We have carefully and astutely examined the authorities relative to the question presented in this case and are of the opinion that the arrest was illegal, and that the trial court erred in permitting the evidence obtained thereby and as a result thereof to become a part of the record.
It is an understood rule of law in this jurisdiction that evidence procured as a result of an illegal arrest cannot properly be admitted in the prosecution of a charge of possession of intoxicating liquor.
Myers v. State, 130 So. 741.
It is unnecessary to go into any lengthy discussion of the case, or to enumerate numerous authorities justifying the conclusion that we have reached. It is regrettable that a violator of the law is to be protected in such a manner as becomes necessary here. However, it appears to the state that it is far more important that section 23 of the constitution of the State of Mississippi be upheld, and that the privacy and security thrown around the citizenship by virtue of that constitutional provision be most carefully and jealously guarded at all times.
The appellant was convicted in the circuit court of Pearl River county on a charge of unlawfully having in his possession intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, and from this conviction and sentence he prosecuted this appeal.
The state offered as a witness a deputy sheriff, who testified that he was informed that the appellant would pass a certain point in about fifteen minutes thereafter with whisky in his possession, and that he went to this place, where presently he saw the appellant approach with a small box or package under his arm. When the appellant reached the place where the officer was stationed, the officer asked him if his name was Monroe Castillow, and, upon receiving an affirmative reply, he commanded him to stop. The appellant did not obey this command, but ran from the scene. The officer pursued, and finally overtook and overpowered him. About that time, the sheriff appeared on the scene and took from the appellant the box which he carried, and, upon opening it, these officers found that it contained six pint bottles of intoxicating liquor. Neither the sheriff nor the deputy sheriff had a warrant for the arrest of the appellant, or for the search of his person or possessions; and the deputy sheriff testified that there was nothing other than the information he had received to indicate to him that the appellant had any intoxicating liquor in his possession.
Under the facts above outlined, the arrest of the appellant was illegal; and consequently the evidence obtained as a result of this arrest was inadmissible. Myers v. State, 158 Miss. 554, 130 So. 741. The judgment of the court below will therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.