Swain v. State, F-79-192
| Decision Date | 30 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. F-79-192,F-79-192 |
| Citation | 621 P.2d 1181 |
| Parties | Pleasant Cleveland SWAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
On February 6, 1978, the Abextra Gift Shop, owned and operated by Bill Borum, was robbed. A man entered the shop, pointed a pistol at Mr. Borum, and stole the cash register receipts and Mr. Borum's wallet. No suspect was apprehended.
On March 6, 1978, Pleasant Cleveland Swain was arrested in Moore, Oklahoma, for the armed robbery of a liquor store in Norman. The subsequent investigation connected Mr. Swain to the Abextra robbery, and he was ultimately convicted of it. He was now appealed that conviction, complaining of both the initial investigation and certain procedural irregularities which allegedly occurred at the trial. We affirm.
The first four assignments of error relate to the appellant's arrest. He argues, first, that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to stop the car in which he was riding; second, that an illegal search followed the improper stop; third, that the evidence found during the illegal search was the basis for a search warrant which led to the discovery of more evidence; and finally, that the illegal proceedings culminated in his making an incriminating statement. It is urged that the statement and all evidence found should be suppressed.
There was nothing wrong with the initial stop. A Moore police officer, Roger Blackshere, was informed by radio that an armed robbery had been committed in east Norman and told to look for a green Pontiac or Chevrolet sedan with two black men in it. One of the men was described. Shortly thereafter Officer Blackshere saw a green Chrysler occupied by two black men. The officer characterized the behavior of the two men as suspicious: Apparently, when they notice him they quickly turned away, but then the driver repeatedly looked back at him. In addition, the passenger fit the description the officer had been given.
Officer Blackshere followed the car for a few block while his dispatcher checked with the Norman police to see whether the car could have been a Chrysler product instead of a General Motors product. When he received an affirmative answer, the officer stopped the car.
The test of a warrantless arrest is whether, at the moment of the arrest, the officer had probable cause to make it: Whether at that moment he had reasonably trustworthy knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant the belief of a prudent person that the suspect had committed or was committing a felony. Title 22 O.S.Supp. 1980, § 196. See Copling v. State, Okl.Cr., 600 P.2d 353 (1979). Applying this standard to the situation described by the officer compels the conclusion that the stop was a proper one.
Nor was there an illegal search. Officer Gary Whisenhunt, who was Officer Blackshere's backup, testified that when he asked for identification the appellant reached under the passenger side of the car and took out three wallets. One of them belonged to Bill Borum, owner of Abextra. Norman Police Lieutenant Neal Vickers arrived soon after the stop was made. Since the two people in the car were taken into custody by the Norman police, the car was impounded by them, and Lieutenant Vickers inventoried the contents of the car at the scene before transporting it to Norman. Lieutenant Vickers testified that he found the three wallets lying on the front seat of the car.
The appellant challenges the admissibility of the wallet on two bases: He says that Norman Police Lieutenant Vickers conducted a search outside of his jurisdiction, and he urges that the inconsistent testimonies indicate that the officers were creating stories after the fact in an attempt to justify what they knew to be an illegal search.
Taking these matters in reverse order, this Court finds consistency in the testimonies of the two officers. Officer Whisenhunt saw the appellant take the wallets out from under the front seat of the car, and Officer Vickers found them on the front seat later when he inventoried the contents of the car. Whether the appellant voluntarily gave the wallets to Officer Whisenhunt or whether Officer Vickers secured them during inventory, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooks v. State
...649 P.2d 788 (Okl.Cr.1982); Lee v. State, 637 P.2d 879 (Okl.Cr.1982); Backus v. State, 635 P.2d 1021 (Okl.Cr.1981); and Swain v. State, 621 P.2d 1181 (Okl.Cr.1980). At the preliminary hearing, one of the officers testified that, indeed, he was acting only upon suspicion. Mere suspicion is n......
-
State v. Boswell
...v. Wright, 88 App.Div.2d 879, 452 N.Y.S.2d 594 (1982) (inventory search of pocketbook found on floor of bar held valid); Swain v. State, 621 P.2d 1181 (Okla.1980) (upholding legality of inventory search of wallets after suspects were taken into custody). See generally Annotation, Lawfulness......
-
Manning v. Patton
...represent himself. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975); Swain v. State, 1980 OK CR 120, ¶ 13, 621 P.2d 1181, 1183 (holding more than personality conflict or disagreement is required to remove counsel once defendant has accepted representation).(Dkt. ......
-
Coleman v. State, F-79-600
...discovered, and was properly in police custody by virtue of the impoundment of the vehicle and the contents thereof. Swain v. State, 621 P.2d 1181 (Okl.Cr.1980); South Dakota v. Opperman, supra. Thus, we find that the arrest of the defendant and the subsequent impoundment and inventory of h......