Chandler v. State

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ELLIS, C.J.
• Citation: Chandler v. State, 93 Fla. 1063, 113 So. 91 (Fla. 1927)
• Decision Date: 16 May 1927
• Parties: CHANDLER v. STATE.

113 So. 91

93 Fla. 1063

CHANDLER v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

May 16, 1927

Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; James M. Peeler Judge.

W. L Chandler was convicted of receiving a stolen automobile knowing it to have been stolen, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Constitutional provisions.

The provision of the fourth article of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States and the twenty-second section of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Florida relates to 'unreasonable searches and seizures.'

COUNSEL

Wm. A. Hallowes, Jr., and Miles W. Lewis, both of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

J. B Johnson, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

ELLIS C.J.

The plaintiff in error and W. L. Dent were jointly informed against in the criminal court of record for Duval county upon the charge of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. The particular offense was the receiving of an automobile, which was stolen from Arthur Hall, knowing that it was stolen.

There was a trial upon the plea of not guilty. Dent was acquitted, and Chandler was convicted. He seeks to reverse the judgment on writ of error.

All the assignments of error relate to objections made and overruled or sustained as to the admissibility of evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

The state's theory of the case was that the defendants. Chandler and Dent, who were the proprietors of a certain garage in Duval county known as the Kings Road Garage, were engaged in the practice of buying stolen automobiles and reselling them in connection with their ostensible business of operating a garage; that they carried on in part their illicit traffic in stolen vehicles through the agency of a person named James A. Shelby in so far as procuring the automobiles was necessary to their activities; that Arthur Hall, who was the owner of a certain automobile known as a Ford roadster, suffered the loss of his automobile by theft in Lake City on July 12, 1926; and that through the channels of Shelby's devious activities it ultimately reached the Kings Road Garage and the possession of the defendants, where it was retaken by the officers of Duval county and identified by the owner. The engine number of the vehicle had been obliterated or changed and other attempts to disguise it were evident, among which were spurious bills of sale and a certificate of title procured through deception from the state comptroller.

An examination of the evidence in the case, as exhibited by the bill of exceptions, shows that the state's theory as to the charge contained in the information was fully sustained as to the plaintiff in error and that the verdict was amply supported by the evidence.

The plaintiff in error, however, contends that the so-called bills of sale and certificate of title which the state offered in evidence should not have been admitted because he says they consisted of documents and papers which 'were taken from the defendant in violation of the constitutional right of the defendant to be secure in his person, papers, and effects from unlawful seizures.'

The guaranty of the fourth article of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States is against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' The twenty-second section of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Florida is in almost the same phraseology as that of article 4, Constitution of the United States. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790.

The facts in the case were as follows: The police officer, C. M. Quattlebaum, in company with E. L. Acosta, another officer, went to the Kings Road Garage and arrested there two 'automobile thieves.' Later he arrested the defendant and Dent and recovered 'five cars at the garage at the time of the arrest.' Among those recovered was the automobile belonging to Arthur Hall. The defendant Chandler told Quattlebaum that he bought the automobile and going to the office showed to Quattlebaum the 'bill of sale and title certificate.' These the officer without objection from Chandler took into his possession, and they were offered and received in evidence. So there was no unlawful taking of the documents nor was possession of them acquired by any unlawful search or seizure.

If the arrest was lawful, and there is no contention that it was not, the evidence found on the place tending to establish the commission of the crime may be lawfully seized. See Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 So. 376.

Even if the evidence had been obtained by a search of the premises that fact would not serve to exclude it in a criminal case. See State v. Flynn, 36 N.H. 64; Jordan v. Lewis, 14 East's Reports, 305; Legatt v. Tollervey, 14 East's Reports, 302; Chastang v. State, 83 Ala. 29, 3 So. 304; State v. Griswold, 67 Conn. 290, 34 A. 1046, 33 L. R. A. 227; Commonwealth v. Smith, 166 Mass. 370, 44 N.E. 503; Commonwealth v. Ryan, 157 Mass. 403, 32 N.E. 349; State v. Pomeroy, 130 Mo. 489, 32 S.W. 1002; State v. Atkinson, 40 S.C. 363, 18 S.E. 1021, 42 Am. St. Rep. 877; State v. Baker, 33 W.Va. 319, 10 S.E. 639.

In the instant case there was no suggestion of an unlawful search. The papers were voluntarily produced by the defendant, shown to the officer, and were retained by him without objection. Moreover, on the cross-examination of the state's witnesses and upon the direct examination of the defendant's witnesses the documents were referred to by defendant's counsel and the witnesses questioned in relation thereto. See Marlow v. State, 49 Fla. 7, 38 So. 653; Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 43 So. 593.

The second, third, and fourth assignments of error are not sustained.

The witness Quattlebaum was asked on cross-examination about certain 'secret numbers' placed on 'Ford automobiles' for purposes of identification. The witness had spoken of the automobile owned by Hall and the 'secret numbers' on it. He was asked where they were--that is, on what part of the automobile they were located. Objection to the question was sustained, and the ruling is assigned as the first error.

The question was a valid cross-question. There could have been no impropriety in permitting the question to be answered nor was there any in disallowing it. The issue was the ownership of the...