Case Name: FLETCHER v. STATE
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1929-03-18
Citations: 7 Ohio Law Abs. 211
Docket Number: No 9743
Parties: FLETCHER v STATE
Judges: Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 7
Pages: 211–211

Head Matter:
FLETCHER v STATE
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co
No 9743.
Decided Mar 18, 1929
H T Gassaway, Cleveland, for Fletcher.
Alfred DeLorenzo, Cleveland, for State.

Opinion:
VICKERY, PJ.
An examination of the record in this case shows that Lillian Fletcher was living upstairs in a double house with an upstairs and a downstairs suite; that her father occupied the downstairs suite and the officers, having investigated the complaints about the conduct of the upper tenant of this house occupied by Mrs. Fletcher, went to the place with a John Doe search warrant, and inasmuch as the father of. the plaintiff sat in the doorway which was the common entrance to both suites, they procured ,a ladder and put it up against the side of .the house and entered through a window and there found Mrs. Fletcher with several guests. They discovered a gallon jug of two quarts of what is called "White Mule", which was a liquid containing .more than the percentage of alcohol, allowed by law, and was fit for beverage purposes. There were four men in the suite and three men were on the way towards the suite which indicated very clearly under the circumstances of this case that the plaintiff in error was trafficking in intoxicating liquor. The court so found and we think rightfully.
The question of a John Doe warrant becomes unimportant in view of the circumstances found after they got into this apartment occupied by the plaintiff in error and what they found .there. That brings it clearly within the Miller law, and while one might doubt the wisdom or propriety of issuing a John Doe search warrant where the name of the occupant of the building to be searched is known, or could with reasonable diligence be ascertained, yet as the circumstances developed in this case, that became a matter of minor importance.
We find no error in this record and the judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.
Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.