Legal Opinion

Frihart v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 6, 1926PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVrajE, C. J.

It was held in State v. Baltes, 183 Wis. 545, 198 N. W. 282, that sworn testimony to sustain a search warrant need not be positive or of such a character as to sustain a conviction. It was there said:

“It is not necessary that there should be positive proof of the existence of the facts upon which the issuance of a *624search warrant is based. It is sufficient that the sworn proof is of such a character as to induce in the mind of the magistrate an honest belief that they exist.”

The reasons for so holding were fully discussed in that case and need not be repeated.

In State v. Blumenstein, 186 Wis.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. BaltesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  2. State v. BlumensteinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Rindskopf v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Bergman v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Davis v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. SwiftCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
  2. Bergman v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  3. State v. Van BrocklinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Wallace v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API