Atkins v. Harris
| Decision Date | 29 July 1957 |
| Citation | 6 McCanless 489,202 Tenn. 489,304 S.W.2d 650 |
| Parties | , 202 Tenn. 489 Z. D. ATKINS, Com'r, Plaintiff in Error, v. Joe HARRIS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Henry C. Foutch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Commissioner Atkins.
Flatt & Flatt and Maddux & Cameron, Cookeville, for defendant.
The principal determinative question on this appeal is the validity of the search of the trunk of an automobile following a lawful arrest.
The proceedings herein were commended by Joe Harris for the purpose of obtaining a return to him of his Chevrolet automobile which had been seized and confiscated by the Commissioner of Finance and Taxation pursuant to T.C.A. § 57-622 et seq.The hearing officer of the department, after hearing the evidence, found that the automobile was properly confiscated and that there was no evidence that the statute was not properly complied with.He dismissed Harris' petition.On certiorari to the Circuit Court it was held that the uncontradicted proof showed that the automobile of petitioner was parked outside the boundaries of the premises owned by him and was parked on an adjacent lot owned by others and that the officers of the department had no lawful right to search and seize and subsequently confiscate said automobile, they at the time having no search warrant nor any lawful right to search said defendant's automobile.The order of the Commissioner was reversed and the automobile ordered returned to the said Harris.From this action the Commissioner has appealed and assigned error.
The facts are that at approximately 10:00 p. m. on the night of August 4, 1955, three alcohol tax agents representing said department, acting upon information received from an informer went to the house of the defendantJoe Harris, in Overton County, Tennessee, for the purpose of purchasing moonshine or white whisky.One of the agents went to the door of the house while the other two agents remained in the automobile parked in the yard with the headlights burning and knocked on the door of said house.The wife of the defendant answered the door and said agent purchased from her a pint of unstamped white whisky for the sum of $2, gave her a $10 bill from which she gave him the proper change.Whereupon the agent identified himself and placed the defendant's wife under arrest for tippling and at a signal from him to the other agents they came in and all proceeded to search the house and the entire premises.They had no search warrant.They detected a strong odor of whisky in the kitchen sink where the same had obviously been poured down the drain and they found about 75 bottles or cans of beer in two electric refrigerators.
At the time of the sale of the whisky by Mrs. Harris the defendant Harris was asleep in bed, but was awakened by the officers as they proceeded with their search of the house and the premises.They arrested him and then required him to turn over the key to his automobile which was parked about 18 feet from the porch of the house.They unlocked the trunk of the car and inside found a gallon of unstamped white whisky.
The proof shows that they gave Harris a receipt at the time for the whisky and the automobile, although they did not include in the receipt the beer which was also taken.
The proof shows that the defendant Harris was a school bus driver and was an active citizen in the community, but also has as part of his reputation that he is a bootlegger and that he had been previously arrested and convicted for violating the liquor laws.
We think that the Circuit Judge was correct in his findings from the evidence that the automobile was parked on the adjoining property not belonging to the defendant Harris at the time it was searched.The Harris lot and the adjoining lot faced on the same street and according to the plat in evidence the boundary between them was a straight line, although there was no fence or other definite structure marking the exact location of the boundary.The proof is that it was approximately 7 1/2 feet from the porch on that side of the house to the boundary line and that the automobile was 11 feet over on the other man's property.Since the adjoining owner has raised no complaint about the search being made on his property and in view of the conclusions we have reached in this matter, we do not consider the fact important that the car was somewhat over the line.
In the following discussion it must be kept in mind that we are not dealing merely with a situation where the officers have a valid search warrant as in Dolen v. State, 187 Tenn. 663, 216 S.W.2d 351, wherein this Court held that the search of an automobile was unlawful where the same was not on the property described in the warrant, but was in the road outside the fence surrounding the property described in the warrant; nor are we dealing with cases where without a warrant a motor vehicle is searched on the basis of probable cause that the vehicle contains contraband, as discussed in 79 C.J.S.Searches and Seizures§ 66 h (2), p. 837, which situation is illustrated by Carroll v. U. S., 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, wherein Judge Taft made the distinction between the search of a vehicle on probable cause on the one hand and a search incidental to a prior lawful arrest.
There can be no question that the arrest of Mrs. Harris...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cottrell, 975--III
...the language and the authority of the warrant. Dolen v. State, 187 Tenn. 663, 216 S.W.2d 351, 353 (1948). See Atkins v. Harris, 202 Tenn. 489, 304 S.W.2d 650, 653 (1957); 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 83d at 902--903 APPENDIX By so finding it must now be determined whether the search of......
-
McArthur v. Pennington
...good reputation. They are not common criminals, or felons. They are law abiding citizens. Another case cited is that of Atkins v. Harris, 202 Tenn. 489, 304 S.W.2d 650. In that case, Harris' automobile was searched about eighteen feet from Harris' house after the officers had confiscated il......
-
Pierce v. State
...unreasonable search up in two recent cases, the first being Liakas v. State, 199 Tenn. 298, 306 et seq., 286 S.W.2d 856; and Atkins v. Harris, Tenn., 304 S.W.2d 650, in which the question was fully discussed and we do not deem it necessary to repeat same. We think that where, as in this cas......
-
Bromley v. State
...reference is made to Thompson v. State, 185 Tenn. 73, 203 S.W.2d 361; Simmons v. State, 198 Tenn. 587, 281 S.W.2d 487; and Atkins v. Harris, Tenn., 304 S.W.2d 650. We cannot dispose of this case on the State's theory that since the arrest was lawful the validity or invalidity of the search ......