Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

546 P.2d 1343

Asher v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1976-03-08

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-03-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 2010

4 state decisions

2019761980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BRETT, Presiding Judge

¶1(dissents).

¶2I respectfully dissent to this decision because I consider the affidavit for issuance of the search warrant to be defective. The printed affidavit form alleges considerably more than the affiant was capable of knowing, according to his' testimony at trial. He does, no doubt, possess the capability of detecting marihuana smoke, but beyond that knowledge all that he otherwise asserts in the affidavit constitutes bald conclusions. He had no knowledge whatsoever that the defendant “. wilfully, feloniously and unlawfully keeps the said narcotic drugs, marihuana, and barbiturate and stimulate drugs . . .” nor did he have any knowledge that “. the above described premises is a place resorted to by addicts for the purposes of using narcotic drugs, marihuana, barbiturate and stimulant drugs and the illegal keeping or selling of the same . . .” all of which is set forth in the affidavit executed by the affiant. All that the affiant testified to was that he smelled marihuana burning. Consequently, if the search warrant was invalid, then the evidence offered should have been held to be inadmissible. Therefore, I believe this conviction should be reversed with instructions to dismiss the charge.

/546/p2d/1343 · .json · Public domain