Opinion ID: 1684580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Acts 1959, Ch. 241, Sections 1, 2.)

Text: The provisions in the above Section have been held by this Court recently to be mandatory. See Talley v. State, 208 Tenn. 275, 345 S.W.2d 867. Most of the description in the copy of the search warrant left with the defendant is omitted altogether although it is fully set out in the original and other copy. An examination of the original and second copy shows that even they are not alike and exact copies, each appears to be an original and not a carbon copy and written separately. The General Sessions Judge testified that the reason the copies were not alike was that the carbon paper was too short. We think this was fatal as under the above-quoted Section, the defendant must be furnished with an exact copy of the search warrant. It appears that the cabins searched by the officers were occupied, although it appears that one party, other than the defendant, did rent and still rents one of the cabins at the time of the search. We think upon both of the above grounds the search was invalid. See in this connection Worden v. State, supra. It results that the judgment of the lower court will be reversed and the case dismissed. TOMLINSON, BURNETT, SWEPSTON and FELTS, JJ., concur.