The opinion
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff in error was convicted, in the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of having possession of a still, and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for a term of six months, and to pay a fine of $500.
Before entering upon the trial, plaintiff in error filed a motion to suppress evidence on the ground that same had been procured by a search of the private residence of defendant, used as such, without a valid search warrant. This motion was overruled, and exceptions properly saved. The record discloses that certain officers with a search warrant searched the private residence and out-buildings of plaintiff in error, and found in the barn a copper still as alleged. The record further discloses that the affidavit for a search warrant does not allege that the place searched, a private residence, or any part of it, was used as a store, shop, hotel, boarding house, or place of storage, or that such place was a place of public resort, as required by_ sections 7012, 7013, Comp. St. 1921. Unless these provisions of the law are complied with a search warrant cannot legally issue to search a private residence occupied as such. Evidence obtained by an unlawful search of a private residence or the curtilage thereof is inadmissible. Cudjo v. State, 34 Okla. Cr. 199 , 245 P. 906 ; Searcy v. State, 33 Okla. Cr. 421 , 244 P. 203 .
The affidavit is further defective, in that it describes several different tracts of land occupied by different persons, and is in effect a blanket search warrant. Wiese v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 203 , 240 P. 1075 ; Cummings v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 274 , 240 P. 1078 ; Daniels v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 426 , 241 P. 836 ; Myer v. State, 34 Okla. Cr. 421 , 246 P. 1105 .
The case is reversed and remanded.