Barfield v. State
| Decision Date | 15 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | A-9638. |
| Citation | 99 P.2d 544,68 Okla.Crim. 455 |
| Parties | BARFIELD v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizures does not preclude the making of a seizure without a warrant previously procured, of intoxicating liquor, where there is no need of a search for the liquor because the liquor is fully disclosed to the eye. Okl.St.Ann.Const. art 2, § 30.
2. A person lawfully arrested may, as an incident thereto, be searched, and articles found in his possession, which are the subject of crime, or the means of committing it, or which may be of use as evidence at the trial, or which may be used in committing violence or in effecting an escape, may be seized. Okl.St.Ann.Const. art. 2, § 21.
3. An offense is committed or attempted "in the presence of an officer," within meaning of statute providing that a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for a public offense, committed or attempted in his presence, where such officer is apprised by any of his senses that a misdemeanor is being committed by the persons arrested prior to the arrest. Sec. 2780, Sts. 1931, 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 196.
4. Whether a search of, and seizure from, an automobile parked on a public highway or other public place, without a warrant is unreasonable within the meaning of the constitutional provision forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures, is to be determined as a judicial question in view of all the facts and circumstances under which it is made. Okl.St.Ann.Const. art. 2, § 30.
5. The constitutional provision forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated by the search, without a warrant of an automobile parked on a public highway, and seizure of intoxicating liquor in the automobile, where the facts and circumstances, as testified to by the officers, were sufficient to warrant officers in believing intoxicating liquor was in carton beside automobile. Sec. 2640, Sts. 1931, 37 Okl.St.Ann. § 89.
6. In prosecution for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, evidence held sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment of conviction.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; Wm. N. Randolph, Judge.
Denis Barfield was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank Hickman, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On information charging that in Tulsa County on the 7th day of December, 1938, Denis Barfield did unlawfully have in his possession 124 pints and 54 quarts of whisky, he was tried and convicted on a trial before the court, a jury having been waived. The judgment was rendered on April 24, 1939, and he was sentenced to confinement in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $50 and costs.
To reverse the judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court June 2, 1939, petition in error with case-made attached.
The state relied for this conviction on the testimony of C. T Raley and Harry Warren of the State Highway Patrol, admitted over the defendant's objection that it was obtained by an unlawful search. Their testimony was to the effect that on the date alleged they saw a car headed west stop on the shoulder of the north side of Highway 33, four or five miles east of the city of Tulsa, they stopped and asked what the trouble was. The defendant said they had a flat and were changing the tire. That they noticed a cardboard carton beside the car that was labeled "John Paul Jones Whisky", and they asked the defendant whose whisky it was, he said it was his. They asked him if that was all he had, and he said he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nott v. State
...presence, and the right to arrest or search without the necessity of a search warrant. We call attention to the case of Barfield v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 99 P.2d 544, 546. The facts in this case were very similar to the case at Two state highway patrolmen were traveling along highway No. 33 i......
-
Sleeper v. State
... ... to search an automobile without the necessity of having a ... search warrant. Elmer Young v. State, Okl.Cr.App., ... 108 P.2d 1028, decided January 7, 1941, and not yet reported ... [in State Report]; Nott v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 107 ... P.2d 366; Barfield v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 99 P.2d ... 544; Matthews v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 93 P.2d 549; ... McAfee v. State, 65 Okl.Cr. 65, 82 P.2d 1006; ... Boardwine v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 49, 76 P.2d 1081; ... Arnold v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 105 P.2d 556; ... Brumley v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 100 P.2d 465; ... ...
-
Pritchett v. State
...State, 34 Okl.Cr. 52, 244 P. 451; Ray v. State, 43 Okl.Cr. 1, 276 P. 785; Houchin v. State, 58 Okl.Cr. 329, 52 P.2d 1085; Barfield v. State, 68 Okl.Cr. 455, 99 P.2d 544. come to the conclusion that it was the duty of the court to pass upon this question as a matter of law, did the court err......
-
Hancock v. State
... ... car upon the public highway or in a public place and if he ... observes a violation of the law, he has the right to arrest ... without the necessity of a warrant. The reason for this ... holding may be seen in the following cases: Matthews v ... State, 67 Okl.Cr. 203, 93 P.2d 549; Barfield v ... State, 68 Okl.Cr. 455, 99 P.2d 544; Brumley v ... State, 69 Okl.Cr. 122, 100 P.2d 465; Hoppes v ... State, 70 Okl.Cr. 179, 105 P.2d 433; Coburn v ... State, 70 Okl.Cr. 329, 106 P.2d 533; Nott v ... State, 70 Okl.Cr. 432, 107 P.2d 366; Hutson v ... State, 72 Okl.Cr. 61, 112 P.2d ... ...