Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 15 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | A-9968. |
| Citation | 125 P.2d 234,74 Okla.Crim. 246 |
| Parties | BROWN 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.
2. Where highway patrolman stops automobile which was being operated in the nighttime on a public highway with only one headlight burning, approaches the automobile to issue a warning tag because of this illegal operation and sees a quantity of liquor in the car, which causes him to search the automobile and seize over 1100 pints of whiskey, such search and seizure is not unlawful.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Oklahoma County; Charles W Conner, Judge.
Joe L Brown was convicted of unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Jim Barnett, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and J. Walker Field, Asst. Atty Gen., for defendant in error.
The defendant, Joe L. Brown, was charged in the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County with the crime of unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, jury was waived, defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced to serve forty-five days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $75, and has appealed.
It is contended by defendant that the court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the evidence for the reason that the search of defendant's automobile was unlawful.
In support of the motion to suppress the evidence the defendant placed the officer on the witness stand who arrested the defendant and seized the liquor involved in this case. This officer swore that he and his partner were patrolling what is known as the Council road, about two miles south of West Tenth street in Oklahoma County; that they saw an automobile approaching with only one headlight. That they stopped the car and the officer approached the driver for the purpose of writing him a warning. That he stopped at the front of the car near the driver, started to write on his warning book, when he saw a pint bottle of whiskey in a passenger's lap in the right-hand side of the front seat and also several packages of whiskey wrapped in brown paper. There were several of these packages stacked in the back of the car and there were markings on the paper which were generally used in the marking of brands of whiskey. That he made a search of the automobile and found 1160 pints of whiskey. That he did not know who was in the automobile and would not have stopped it if they had not been driving the automobile on the road with just one headlight, contrary to the law.
The defendant testified that he was stopped by the patrolman. He admitted possession of approximately 1100 pints of whiskey and stated that it belonged to him. He said the whiskey was covered with a blanket in the back seat and denied that the patrolman could see it. He admitted that part of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clasby v. State
...70 Okl.Cr. 432, 107 P.2d 366; Mitchell v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 184, 119 P.2d 99; Sims v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 321, 121 P.2d 317; Brown v. State, 74 Okl.Cr. 246, 125 P.2d 234. For reasons above stated, the judgment and sentence of the County Court of Ottawa County is affirmed. JONES, P.J., concurs......
-
Hancock v. State
... ... 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 1109; Hammonds v ... State, 73 Okl.Cr. 287, 120 P.2d 376; Hutchinson v ... State, 74 Okl.Cr. 30, 122 P.2d 395; Brown v ... State, 74 Okl.Cr. 246, 125 P.2d 234; Saffa v ... State, 75 Okl.Cr. 19, 128 P.2d 241; Wirth v. State, ... Okl.Cr.App., 151 P.2d 819 ... [80 ... Okla.Crim. 10] No constitutional or statutory right of the ... defendant was violated, and the court did not err in ... ...
-
Passmore v. State
... ... held by this court that where a misdemeanor is committed in ... the presence of an officer, he has the right to arrest ... without a warrant, and after the arrest, to search the ... defendant and his immediate surroundings. Overturf v ... State, 69 Okl.Cr. 303, 102 P.2d 623; Brown v ... State, 74 Okl.Cr. 246, 125 P.2d 234; Mullins v ... State, 75 Okl.Cr. 417, 133 P.2d 239; Glasby v ... State, 78 Okl.Cr. 45, 143 P.2d 430 ... It is ... contended that the court erred in refusing to sustain a ... motion to disqualify all of the jurors in this case ... ...
-
Wirth v. State
...leave the scene for the purpose of securing a search warrant. Such a construction as this would make a farce of the law. Brown v. State, 74 Okl.Cr. 246, 125 P.2d 234; Nott v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 432, 107 P.2d Barfield v. State, 68 Okl.Cr. 455, 99 P.2d 544; Matthews v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 203, 9......