State v. All
| Decision Date | 17 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 7215SC777,7215SC777 |
| Citation | 193 S.E.2d 770,17 N.C.App. 284 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Ronald Eugene ALL and Carlton Oscar Weaver. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan by Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard P. Satisky, for the State.
Loflin, Anderson & Loflin by Thomas F. Loflin, III, Durham, and Harris & McEntire by Mitchell M. McEntire, Graham, and Laura Jean Guy, Graham, for defendants.
Defendants assign as error the admission of testimony by the Virginia State trooper of his observation of the load of hams in the cargo bed of the truck. They argue that the hams were not in 'plain view' of the trooper because he had to climb up on the wheel or axle of the truck to see over the wooden siding. They argue, therefore, that the hams were discovered by means of a search which was not reasonably related to the offense for which All was arrested, which was not for purposes of protection or prevention of escape, and which was not founded on probable cause; and, consequently, was a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It seems to us that the arguments advanced by defendants are wide of the mark. In this instance, the officer knew he must impound the truck until the windshield could be repaired. Under such circumstances it was his duty to take reasonable precautions to protect defendants' cargo from loss or destruction. Also, it was his duty to protect himself and the State from charges of loss of cargo. In order to do these things it was necessary for him to know the nature and quantity of the cargo. His conduct in looking into the cargo bed was both reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. If his action can be classed as a search, it was certainly a reasonable search. It is only unreasonable searches which are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. State v. Ratliff, 281 N.C. 397, 189 S.E.2d 179. Once the trooper acquired knowledge of the cargo by a reasonable act, he was not required to suppress this knowledge when the police radio bulletin later advised of the theft of a quantity of Hickory Mountain Farms hams.
The numerous cases relied upon by defendants are distinguishable upon the reason for the 'search'. For cases more comparable to the present case See 10 A.L.R.3d 314--354, § 9 (New) Making inventory of contents of impounded vehicle (Supp. 1972). In our opinion, the trooper's testimony concerning the load of hams was properly admitted in evidence.
Defendants next...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goff
...P.2d 481 (1976); State v. Boster, 217 Kan. 618, 539 P.2d 294 (1975); State v. Achter, 512 S.W.2d 894 (Mo.App.1974); State v. All, 17 N.C.App. 284, 193 S.E.2d 770 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866, 94 S.Ct. 51, 38 L.Ed.2d 85 (1973); State v. McDougal, 68 Wis.2d 399, 228 N.W.2d 671 The basis......
-
South Dakota v. Opperman
...Bennett v. State, 507 P.2d 1252 (Okl.Cr.App.1973); People v. Willis, 46 Mich.App. 436, 208 N.W.2d 204 (1973); State v. All, 17 N.C.App. 284, 193 S.E.2d 770, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866, 94 S.Ct. 51, 38 L.Ed.2d 85 (1973); Godbee v. State, 224 So.2d 441 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969). Even the seminal......
-
State v. Briggs
...v. State, 507 P. 2d 1252 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973) ; People v. Willis, 46 Mich. App. 436, 208 N. W. 2d 204 (1973) ; State v. All, 17 N. C. App. 284, 193 S. E. 2d 770, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866 [94 S.Ct. 51, 38 L.Ed.2d 85] (1973) ; Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969). E......
- Robinson v. State, 53257