State v. Kenniston
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions. Complaint on search and seizure process, from the police court of the city of Gardiner. S. W. Siphers, constable of Gardiner, made return on the warrant. “I have entered the within named premises and therein searched for intoxicating liquors and found and seized the following described liquors,” &c.
Read the full summary
Exceptions. Complaint on search and seizure process, from the police court of the city of Gardiner. S. W. Siphers, constable of Gardiner, made return on the warrant. “I have entered the within named premises and therein searched for intoxicating liquors and found and seized the following described liquors,” &c. It appeared in evidence that Siphers was away on an excursion, when the search was made by Wing, Williams and Atkins, policemen, at about nine o’clock in the evening; that Siphers returned at about-eleven o’clock-and met the policemen on the street, who told him of the search and…
1Opinion of the CourtAppleton, C. J.
This is a search and seizure process. It was directed to an officer, by whom a return was made, that he had entered “the within named premises and therein searched for *559intoxicating liquors and found and seized the following described liquors,” — stating them.
“The officer’s return,” remarks Peters, J., in State v. Howley, 65 Maine, 100, 101, “is a part of the allegations to be proved, but is no part of the proof itself. State v. Stevens, 47 Maine, 357. State v. Lang, 63 Maine, 215.” The allegations in the complaint, warrant and return are not established by reading the same. The truth of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. BlackwellNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958