Boyd v. State
Decision Date | 08 June 1926 |
Docket Number | 24,482 |
Citation | 152 N.E. 278,198 Ind. 55 |
Parties | Boyd v. State of Indiana |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Indictment for transporting liquor in an automobile held sufficient.---An indictment charging that the defendant, on a named date, and in the county of the indictment, did unlawfully and feloniously transport intoxicating liquor in an automobile was sufficient under the law of 1923 (Acts 1923 p. 108) making it a felony to transport intoxicating liquor in a vehicle. p. 57.
2 ARREST.---When arrest for felony may be made without a warrant.---Where a felony has been or is being committed, and a peace officer has reasonable and probable cause to be- lieve that a certain person was the offender, the officer is justified in arresting him without a warrant. p 59.
3. ARREST.---As a general rule, an unlawful arrest cannot be the foundation of a lawful search, nor will information obtained by an unlawful search alone furnish the basis for a lawful arrest. p. 59.
4. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---Unlawful search cannot be made lawful by what afterwards takes place.---Where a search is unlawful to begin with, it is not made lawful by that which afterwards takes place. p. 59.
5. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---Evidence and information in possession of peace officers held insufficient to authorize search of defendant's automobile, although a jug of whisky was found therein. p. 59.
6. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---Evidence obtained by search of automobile without probable cause should have been suppressed.---Where the only reason for arresting the driver of an automobile was that the arresting officers believed that he was transporting whisky therein, such belief being founded on the fact that they saw him exchange packages with a negro as he drove along the street, a search of the car after his arrest was without probable cause as required by the Constitution, Art. 1, 11, and the evidence obtained by such search should have been suppressed on motion to that effect. p. 59.
From Vanderburgh Circuit Court; Phillip Gould, Judge.
Rolla Boyd was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile, and he appeals.
Reversed.
John W Spencer, Jr., for appellant.
U. S. Lesh, Attorney-General and Mrs. Edward Franklin White, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
This action is based on an indictment returned by the grand jury of Vanderburgh county, Indiana, in which the appellant Rolla Boyd, was indicted for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor in an automobile, under the transportation act of 1923. It is charged in the indictment that the appellant, on or about April 18, 1923, at said county, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously transport intoxicating liquor in a certain vehicle, to wit, an automobile, then and there being, etc.
A motion was made to quash the indictment, alleging that the facts stated in said indictment did not charge a public offense and that said indictment does not state the offense with sufficient certainty.
The questions presented by this motion to quash have been heretofore decided adversely to the contention of appellant. Volderauer v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 415, 143 N.E. 674; Simpson v. State (1925), 195 Ind. 633, 146 N.E. 747; Frey v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 359, 147 N.E. 279; Eiler v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 562, 149 N.E. 62; Morgan v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 374, 151 N.E. 98. The court did not err in overruling appellant's motion to quash the indictment.
Appellant claims in his motion for a new trial that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. Appellant says that the only evidence in support of the finding was procured by unlawful search of the automobile used by him, and he made a motion to suppress this evidence, but such motion was not ruled upon by the court, and when the evidence was offered upon the trial of the case, he objected to its introduction, but it was admitted over his objection and exception.
The evidence most favorable to the state is as follows: Sherman Hamsley testified for the state as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial