391 U.S. 216 (1968), 149, Dyke v. Taylor Implement Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Docket NºNo. 149
Citation391 U.S. 216, 88 S.Ct. 1472, 20 L.Ed.2d 538
Party NameDyke v. Taylor Implement Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Case DateMay 20, 1968
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 216

391 U.S. 216 (1968)

88 S.Ct. 1472, 20 L.Ed.2d 538

Dyke

v.

Taylor Implement Manufacturing Co., Inc.

No. 149

United States Supreme Court

May 20, 1968

Argued January 18, 1968

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

Syllabus

In connection with a labor dispute, a Tennessee county chancery court issued an injunction which, inter alia, barred inflicting harm or damage to respondent company's employees. About a month later, a shot was fired from a car at the house of one of respondent's nonstriking employees. A deputy sheriff, presumably informed of the crime but without a description of the car or further details, pursued a suspicious car which raced away but was ultimately stopped by policemen, who arrested petitioners, the car's occupants, apparently for reckless driving. The deputy sheriff arrived, and he and the policemen noted a fresh bullet hole in the car. They took petitioners to jail, and the policemen parked the car on the street outside, apparently as a convenience to the car's owner. The deputy sheriff and several policemen made a warrantless search of the car and found an air rifle under the front seat. Over petitioners' objection, evidence about the gun was admitted at their trial before the chancellor for criminal contempt for violating the injunction. Petitioners were found guilty and given the maximum sentence of 10 days in jail and a $50 fine. The State Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contentions that the convictions violated their constitutional rights because a jury trial was denied and because evidence concerning the gun, which they claimed had been illegally seized, had been admitted.

Held:

1. In the light of the maximum sentence which the Tennessee statutes allowed, the criminal contempt for which petitioners were convicted was a "petty offense," to which the federal constitutional right of a jury trial does not extend. Pp. 219-220.

2. The evidence in the record is insufficient to justify the conclusion that the officers, before they began their warrantless search of the car, had "reasonable or probable cause" to believe that they would find an instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime. The applicability of Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), to a warrantless search of a parked automobile upon probable cause therefore need not be decided, and petitioners' claim must be sustained that the gun was illegally

Page 217

seized and evidence concerning it should not have been admitted at their trial. Pp. 220-222.

219 Tenn. 472, 410 S.W.2d 881, reversed and remanded.

WHITE, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners, Wayne Dyke, Ed McKinney, and John Blackwell, were found guilty of criminal contempt by the Chancery Court of McMinn County, Tennessee. All three were given the maximum sentence authorized by statute, 10 days in jail and a $50 fine.1 The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed,2 rejecting contentions that the convictions violated the Federal Constitution because a jury trial was denied3 and because testimony concerning

Page 218

a gun, allegedly discovered during an unconstitutional search, was admitted at trial. Petitioners raised both challenges in their petition for [88 S.Ct. 1474] a writ of certiorari, and we granted the writ. 389 U.S. 815 (1967).

In connection with a labor dispute, McMinn County Chancery Court issued, on January 24, 1966, an injunction against, inter alia,

inflicting harm or damage upon the persons or property of [respondent Taylor Implement Company's] employees, customers, visitors or any other persons.

On the night of February 25, 1966, a car was seen to drive past the home of Lloyd Duckett, a nonstriking Taylor Implement employee who lived in Monroe County, which adjoins McMinn. Shots were fired from the car at or into the Duckett home. Robert Wayne Ellis, Duckett's son-in law, was standing in the front yard with another son-in law, Dale Harris; Ellis fired back at the car with a pistol, and thought his first shot hit the back of the car. Ellis informed Monroe County Sheriff Howard Kirkpatrick by telephone, and soon after, Monroe Deputy Sheriff Loyd Powers, contacted by Kirkpatrick on his radio and presumably told of the crime, spotted a suspicious car and began following it. The car raced away, but was stopped by Athens, Tennessee, policemen, notified by Powers of a speeding car heading for Athens. When Powers reached the stopped car, which contained the three petitioners, he and the Athens policemen took them to McMinn County jail,4

Page 219

and parked their car outside the jail. While petitioners were waiting inside the jail, Powers and several Athens policemen searched the car. Under the front seat they found an air rifle. At trial, there was testimony that Ellis and Harris had recognized the car from which shots were fired as a two-tone 1960 or 1961 Dodge, that Ellis thought he hit the back of the Dodge with one shot, that the car stopped in Athens was a 1960 Dodge with a fresh bullet hole through the trunk lid, that an air rifle pellet was found the next day outside the Duckett home, and that an air rifle was found under the car's seat.5 The chancellor noted that the case against petitioners was "premised entirely upon circumstantial evidence," but that nonetheless he had

no trouble at all with the proof which I have heard, and I have weighed it in its severest form, that the charges made must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The three petitioners were found guilty.

Petitioners' first claim is that the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when their request for trial by jury was denied. We have held today, in Duncan v. Louisiana, ante, p. 145, that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes upon the States the requirement of Article III and the Sixth Amendment that jury trials be available to criminal defendants. We have also held, in Bloom v. Illinois, ante, p. 194, that prosecutions for criminal contempt are within the constitutional guarantee. The Bloom and Duncan cases, however, have reaffirmed the view that the guarantee of jury trial does not extend to petty crimes. As Bloom makes clear, supra, at 195-200, criminal contempt has always been thought not to be a crime of the sort that requires a jury trial regardless of the penalty authorized. Alleged criminal contemnors

Page 220

must be given a jury trial, therefore, unless the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
368 practice notes
  • The future of vehicle searches incident to arrest.
    • United States
    • Ave Maria Law Review Vol. 11 Nbr. 2, March 2013
    • March 22, 2013
    ...critical of Rabinowitz and four Court cases that did not rely on Rabinowitz). (87.) Id. at n. 15. (88.) Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 220 (1968) (holding search not incident to arrest because begun in arrestees' car while arrestees were already in custody in courthouse); ......
  • Probable Cause Pluralism.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 129 Nbr. 5, March 2020
    • March 1, 2020
    ...(Stewart, J.) Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) PU Fact Civillian (Brennan, J.) Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., Thin Officer/ 391 U.S. 216 (1968) Script (404) Civillian (White, J.) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968) Narrative Officer (Warren, C.J.) Mosaic Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Trial Manual for Defense Attorneys in Juvenile Delinquency Cases
    • June 23, 2014
    ...Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), 21.03(b) Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), 12.17 Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216 (1968), 23.24, 23.26 E Eanes, People v., 43 A.D.2d 744, 350 N.Y.S.2d 718 (N.Y. App. Div., 2d Dep’t 1973), 8.13 Easter, State v., 130 Wash. 2d 2......
  • Motions to Suppress Tangible Evidence
    • United States
    • Trial Manual for Defense Attorneys in Juvenile Delinquency Cases
    • June 23, 2014
    ...v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (1980) (per curiam), with Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (1964), and Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216 (1968). See also California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) (extending the Carroll rule to a motor home parked in a downtown parking lot); Flo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
362 cases
  • 345 F.Supp. 1025 (E.D.La. 1972), Civ. A. 3390, Melancon v. McKeithen
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 5th Circuit Eastern District of Louisiana
    • March 1, 1972
    ...art. 1, § 7. [72] See Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491; Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 1968, 391 U.S. 216, 88 S.Ct. 1472, 20 L.Ed.2d 538; Bloom v. Illinois, 1968, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522; Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 1966, 384 U.S. 37......
  • United States v. Katana, 011921 MADC, Crim. A. 4:19-40024-TSH
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 1st Circuit District of Massachusetts
    • January 19, 2021
    ...believe that he will find the instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime. Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216 (1968). In addition to the probable cause, there must also exist exigent circumstances in which it would not be practical to o......
  • 504 F.2d 92 (6th Cir. 1974), 74-1242, United States v. Lewis
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    • October 8, 1974
    ...U.S. at 153, 45 S.Ct. at 285. See also Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra; Chambers v. Maroney, supra; Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 88 S.Ct. 1472, 20 L.Ed.2d 538 The officers assuredly would have been derelict in their duties if, while believing that explosives were in the......
  • 395 U.S. 147 (1969), 200, Frank v. United States
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1969
    ...is entitled to a jury trial unless the particular offense can be classified as "petty." Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216 (1968); Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968); Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 In determining whether a particular offense can be classifie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Trial Manual for Defense Attorneys in Juvenile Delinquency Cases
    • June 23, 2014
    ...Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), 21.03(b) Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), 12.17 Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216 (1968), 23.24, 23.26 E Eanes, People v., 43 A.D.2d 744, 350 N.Y.S.2d 718 (N.Y. App. Div., 2d Dep’t 1973), 8.13 Easter, State v., 130 Wash. 2d 2......
  • Motions to Suppress Tangible Evidence
    • United States
    • Trial Manual for Defense Attorneys in Juvenile Delinquency Cases
    • June 23, 2014
    ...v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (1980) (per curiam), with Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (1964), and Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216 (1968). See also California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) (extending the Carroll rule to a motor home parked in a downtown parking lot); Flo......
  • The future of vehicle searches incident to arrest.
    • United States
    • Ave Maria Law Review Vol. 11 Nbr. 2, March 2013
    • March 22, 2013
    ...critical of Rabinowitz and four Court cases that did not rely on Rabinowitz). (87.) Id. at n. 15. (88.) Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 220 (1968) (holding search not incident to arrest because begun in arrestees' car while arrestees were already in custody in courthouse); ......
  • Probable Cause Pluralism.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 129 Nbr. 5, March 2020
    • March 1, 2020
    ...(Stewart, J.) Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) PU Fact Civillian (Brennan, J.) Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., Thin Officer/ 391 U.S. 216 (1968) Script (404) Civillian (White, J.) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968) Narrative Officer (Warren, C.J.) Mosaic Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40......
  • Request a trial to view additional results