Guido

The district attorney filed an information against the defendant, charging him with having violated the provisions of chapter 277, Statutes of 1927— the unlawful possession of a still intended for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. The defendant was tried before the trial court sitting with a jury. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant and from a judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed.

In his brief the defendant calls to our attention that his premises were searched by the peace officers and that they took from his possession numerous parts of a still and a quantity of distilled liquor and that the officers did not have a search-warrant authorizing them to do or perform any of said acts. Before the trial the defendant made a motion to suppress, but the motion was denied. He cites and relies on the doctrine as stated in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 [ 29 L. Ed. 746 , 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes], and in his brief he has made an exhaustive presentation of the doctrine stated in that case. However, his reasoning is not convincing. The doctrine of that case has never been adopted in this state. The law…