State v. Mims
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
By the WHOLE COURT.
ST. PAUL, J.
Defendant was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing whisky for sale for beverage purposes, and was fined $500 and 60 days in jail, and 12 months additional if the fine be not paid. He appeals to this court.
The record contains but one bill of exception, to wit, to a refusal of the district judge to exclude certain evidence obtained by search and seizure made without a search warrant.
The bill is without merit. In Shreveport v. Marx, 148 La. 31 , 86 South. 602 , and again in State v. Fleckinger, 152 La. 337 , 93 South. 115 , this court held that evidence otherwise admissible in a criminal case, should not be excluded even though obtained by search and seizure without a search warrant.
Decree.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. 1 O’NIELL, J., concurs in the decree, but does not approve the doctrine of State v. Fleckinger.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.