United States v. Thompson

Decision Date04 April 1969
Docket NumberNo. 18811.,18811.
Citation409 F.2d 113
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Edward THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

J. Harold Ellis, Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.

Bart C. Durham, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., for appellee; Thomas L. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, D. C., on brief.

Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges.

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge.

The only issue presented in this case — a difficult one — is whether or not the arrest of appellant and the subsequent search of his car were violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This issue was tried on appellant's motion to suppress evidence (the 30 gallons of non-tax-paid corn whiskey which was found in the trunk of his car). A District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, denied the motion to suppress and subsequently found appellant guilty of violating the federal liquor excise tax laws on the basis of the same testimonial record. Prosecution and defense had stipulated that the principal case should be tried on the evidentiary record made on the motion to suppress.

The critical evidence pertaining to the arrest was presented by Memphis Police Officer Mattingly. He testified that he and his partner were seated in a parked police car which had radar speed detection equipment and that a Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission officer, Holt, was in the car with them.

We employ hereafter the critical facts as found by the District Judge, but observe that we have read the entire testimonial record and believe that these findings are adequately supported therein:

"The defendant, from their rear, passed the officers driving at a slow rate of speed in his Pontiac automobile. As he did so, Holt remarked that the automobile looked familiar, and one of the police officers, Mattingly, his attention having been drawn to the car, noticed that the city inspection sticker on the windshield did not look right. He therefore started up the police car and overtook defendant to get a better look at the sticker. Upon doing so, he observed that, though it was not yet out-of-date, it looked faded and was surrounded by an excess of glue, indicating to him that the sticker had illegally been moved from another car to this one. The officers therefore dropped behind defendant, and their flashing red light and siren were turned on, causing defendant to pull over and stop.
"As he came to a stop, defendant got out of his car and met the approaching officers who had also gotten out of their car. The city police officers were questioning defendant about the sticker and his driver\'s license, when Holt, the State officer, asked defendant his name. Upon giving his name, Holt realized for the first time that he knew defendant, and he knew that defendant had before been involved in illicit liquor. At about the same time, Holt smelled moonshine whiskey (which has a distinctive odor) at the rear of defendant\'s car. Holt also had noticed that the rear of the car was riding low. He then indicated to defendant that he thought there was whiskey in the trunk, to which defendant replied that he was indeed `loaded.\' The trunk was then opened, the thirty gallons of moonshine whiskey was seized, and defendant was placed under arrest for violation of the liquor laws."

The District Judge concluded:

"As stated, defendant was stopped because of the appearance of the inspection sticker, and this was not a subterfuge to obtain other information."

On this appeal what appears to us really to be at issue is whether or not the law enforcement officers who testified fabricated evidence to support the lawfulness of their conduct. Clearly, if a police officer saw an inspection sticker so faded as to suggest that it had been water soaked off one car and so surrounded with glue as to suggest that it had been affixed to appellant's car with other than its own adhesive, he would have probable cause to believe that appellant was in his presence violating the Memphis ordinance1 prohibiting such a transfer. T.C.A. § 40-803(1) provides: "An officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (1) For a public offense misdemeanor committed or a breach of the peace threatened in his presence. * * *" See also Robertson v. State, 184 Tenn. 277, 198 S.W.2d 633 (1947); Goodwin v. State, 148 Tenn. 682, 257 S.W. 79 (1923); Roberson v. Metropolitan Government, 56 Tenn.App. 729, 412 S.W.2d 902 (1966).

Appellant contends that no such facts were true — that the sticker was entirely normal in appearance. He also contends that anyhow, the police when parked at the curb were obviously not in a position to observe the appearance of the sticker if there had been anything wrong with it. Officer Mattingly, however, testified:

"Q. Where was Mr. Thompson\'s car when Mr. Holt said he thought he knew that car which caused you to look at it particularly? Was it beside you?
"A. Yes, sir, it was moving slowly approximately fifteen or twenty miles an hour, and he said, `I think I know that car.\', and at that time I just looked over at it, and I noticed that glue was smeared around the inspection sticker there. Of course, at that time, I could not see the other side of the inspection sticker.
"Q. And when you pulled up beside him, you got a better look?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. At that time were you flashing your light and did you have your siren going?
"A. I pulled up beside to get a better look before I hit the siren, and then when I pulled up, I could see that it was badly faded."

Violation of the Memphis ordinance was not, of course, finally established even by detailed inspection at the scene. But subsequent comparison of the serial number assigned to this sticker with city records established that in fact this sticker had been issued for a car other than the one which appellant was driving. This fact tended to rebut appellant's claim of a search on pretext and to offer important confirmation of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Nolan v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • April 16, 1970
    ...v. United States, 392 F.2d 432, 435-436 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 830, 89 S.Ct. 97, 21 L.Ed.2d 101; United States v. Thompson, 409 F.2d 113, 117 (6th Cir. 1969); United States v. Masterson, 383 F.2d 610, 614 (2d Cir. 1967); Murray v. United States, 333 F.2d 409, 411 (10th Cir.......
  • Singleton v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • March 18, 1976
    ...facie case of illegal search, the government must assume the burden of proof that any search made was lawful.’ United States v. Thompson, 409 F.2d 113, 117 (6th Cir. 1969). 6. Taglianetti v. United States, 398 F.2d 558 (1st Cir. 1969); United States v. White, 417 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1969); Uni......
  • United States v. Luke
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • May 31, 2016
    ...facie case of illegal search, the government must assume the burden of proof that any search made was lawful." United States v. Thompson, 409 F.2d 113, 117 (6th Cir. 1969) (citing United States v. Burhannon, 388 F.2d 961 (7th Cir. 1968)).A. The January 16, 2013 Search Warrant for Defendant'......
  • U.S. v. Murrie
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 27, 1976
    ...the burden is on the government to show that exigent circumstances excused the requirement of a search warrant. United States v. Thompson, 409 F.2d 113 (CA6 1969). Here, however, it is not the validity of the search per se which is in issue; rather, it is the validity of the physical entry ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT