Case ID: sd_58/html/0146-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE, Respondent, v. TANNER, Appellant.
    (235 N. W. 502.)
    (File No. 6648.
    Opinion filed March 10, 1931.)
    
      O’Keeffe ■& Stephens, of Pierre, and Roy A. Nord, of Eaulkton, for Appellant.
    
      M. Q. Sharpe, Attorney General; Prank W. Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General, and P. B. Snider, State’s Attorney, of Eaulkton, for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves the question as to the admissibility in evidence in a criminal case (there having been due diligence in seeking suppression) of evidence secured by state officers by illegal search and seizure. The present law of this jurisdiction upon this point is represented by the rule laid down in State v. Gooder, 57 S. D. 619, 234 N. W. 610.

Upon the authority of the Gooder Case, the judgment and order here appealed from are reversed.