Brantley v. State, M--76--21
| Citation | 548 P.2d 675 |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. M--76--21,M--76--21 |
| Parties | Marvin BRANTLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The Appellant, Marvin Brantley, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by Information in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRM--75--2852 with the crime of Possession of Marihuana. A jury was waived and the cause submitted to the trial court upon a stipulation of record to the effect that if Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer Johnny Potts was called to testify his testimony would be the same as appeared in the transcript of the hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress; that the substance found in the defendant's glove box was marihuana and that the defendant had no driver's license at the time of his arrest and trial. The trial court found the defendant guilty as charged and punishment was assessed at a one (1) year suspended sentence. From said judgment and sentence the defendant has perfected his timely appeal.
During the hearing on the defendant's Motion to Suppress, Officer Potts testified that the defendant was stopped at a nonselective wholesale driver's license and safety check by roadblock in Oklahoma County on the 6th day of September, 1975. When asked for his driver's license, the defendant advised Potts that he did not have one because it had been suspended for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The driver's license suspension was confirmed by a radio check and the defendant was then placed under arrest and advised that he would be transported to the Oklahoma County jail. Potts then called headquarters, requested a wrecker and performed an inventory search of the vehicle, finding a bag of marihuana in the glove box.
The defendant's first assignment of error urges that the trial court erred in not sustaining defendant's Motion to Suppress the evidence for the reason that the driver's license and safety check amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure, that the statutes permitting such driver's license checks were unconstitutional and that the marihuana found in the glove box was not admissible as evidence due to said unlawful restraint of the defendant.
In State v. Moyers, 86 Okl.Cr. 101, 189 P.2d 952, this Court in its syllabus held that the Legislature, in exercise of its right to regulate the use of highways and of the inherent police power of the state, has the power to regulate circumstances under which automobiles may be operated upon the highways of the state. Section 6--112 of Title 47 provides as follows:
'Every licensee shall have his operator's or chauffeur's license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same upon demand of . . ., a peace officer, or a field deputy or inspector of the Department. . . .'
It is, therefore, apparent that the state has the right to make routine and reasonable driver's license checks designed to insure the safety and welfare of its citizens by assuring that only licensed drivers are on the highways. See also Edwards v. State, Okl.Cr., 319 P.2d 1021, wherein this Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garcia, 1-385
...647 P.2d 959; State v. Frisby, (1978) 161 W.Va. 734, 245 S.E.2d 622; State v. Bloom, (1977) 90 N.M. 192, 561 P.2d 465; Brantley v. State, (1976) Okla.Crim., 548 P.2d 675; People v. Andrews, (1971) 173 Colo. 510, 484 P.2d 1207; People v. De La Torre, (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 162, 64 Cal.Rptr. 8......
-
People v. Schmidt
...State v. Tabory, 260 S.C. 355, 196 S.E.2d 111 (1973). We do not necessarily agree with statements, such as appear in Brantley v. State, 548 P.2d 675 (Okl.Cr.App.1976), that the evidence compels the conclusion that marijuana use is detrimental to public health and safety, or the South Caroli......
-
United States v. Long, 82-1504.
...not have a driver's license, Motto could arrest him for driving without a license. See Okla.Stat.tit. 47, § 6-112; Brantley v. State, 548 P.2d 675, 676 (Okl.Cr.App.1976). Similarly, once the Thunderbird was lawfully stopped, Reyes and Motto had the right to approach the car and look into it......
-
Lookingbill v. State
...and welfare of its citizens by assuring that only licensed drivers are on the highways." Brantley v. State, 1976 OK CR 82, ¶¶ 2-4, 548 P.2d 675, 675-76. 5. When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence based on an illegal seizure, "we defer to the trial court's find......