Dittberner v. State
| Decision Date | 15 January 1927 |
| Parties | DITTBERNER v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1927.
Error to Criminal Court, Shelby County; J. Ed Richards, Judge.
E Dittberner was convicted for transporting more than a gallon of intoxicating liquor, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Clarence Friedman, Bryan & Brode, and Galloway & Weinstein, all of Memphis, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for transporting more than a gallon of intoxicating liquor. It is not denied that when arrested plaintiff in error was in charge of an automobile in which was being transported along the streets of Memphis a large quantity of liquor. The insistence is that the evidence of the officer who made the arrest was obtained through an illegal seizure and search. The question turns upon the reasonableness of the grounds which the arresting officer had. It appears that while driving along the speedway in Memphis at night, while not on active duty, the attention of the officer was attracted to a car which passed him bearing a foreign state license plate, very dusty, the springs of which had been re-enforced in a manner which he had formerly observed used on cars employed in the transportation of liquor. He also observed that, despite this re-enforcement of the springs, the car, as he followed it along the speedway gave indications of being heavily loaded in the rear. It may be conceded that, while this clue was insufficient to warrant the arrest, it justified this officer in giving some attention to the car and its occupants, which he proceeded to do, following slowly. Under these circumstances, the driver of the car took the south fork of the speedway at the point where the ordinance requires cars going north and south to take the respective sides of the driveway. After driving a short distance on the wrong side of the speedway, the suspected car was stopped and its lights put out. This circumstance confirmed, as it well might have done, the suspicions of the officer, it becoming quite apparent that these parties desired to escape his observation. Furthermore the testimony shows that the suspected car when followed by the officer's car was driven at different speeds, slowing down and then quickening up, also was circled about on unpaved streets--all suggestive of a purpose to elude a possible pursuit and indicating guilt. A little later, when the car driven by the plaintiff in error and conveying two companions was brought to a stop at a drug store, the officer arrested the plaintiff in error and he soon thereafter admitted his guilt, and thereafter, upon a search of the car, some 15 cases of whisky were found therein, each case containing 12 quarts.
As heretofore held by this court, cases of this class turn largely upon the peculiar facts of each case. Of course, officers are not justified in holding up automobiles upon mere suspicion unsupported by plausible grounds, but the facts of this case tend very strongly to support the insistence of the state and the finding of the trial judge that reasonable grounds existed for the action taken by the arresting officer. The facts are much stronger than those recited in the recently decided case from the Fifth United States Circuit, relied on by counsel. Having been justifiably arrested, the search was warranted, even though the plaintiff in error had made no admissions.
The assignments are overruled, and the judgment affirmed.
Opinion on Petition to Rehear.
The points we conceived to be mainly relied on in this petition will be dealt with briefly.
In deciding at the present term the case of Howard Martin v. State (Shelby Criminal, December 11, 1926), it was said:
(3) When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
(4) On a charge made, upon a reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the person arrested.'
The substance of these provisions is that an officer may lawfully proceed to arrest without a warrant any person when the officer has, with reasonable cause, been led to believe that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony. It is essential to the protection of society that a wide discretion be vested in officers chosen to enforce our laws against felonies. It is impossible to define 'reasonable cause' in terms to fit all cases arising. Each case must stand on its own facts. A narrow construction would open the way for the escape of desperate criminals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reynolds
...not possible to define probable cause "in terms to fit all cases arising. Each case must stand on its own facts." Dittberner v. State, 155 Tenn. 102, 291 S.W. 839, 840 (1927). Defining the concept too narrowly "would open the way for the escape of desperate criminals and the defeat of justi......
-
State v. Brown
...which would convict; when circumstances fairly point to a felony it is his duty to act, and act promptly.Dittberner v. State, 155 Tenn. 102, 106, 291 S.W. 839, 840 (1927).When determining whether the police possessed probable cause, the courts should consider the collective knowledge that l......
-
Erby v. State
... ... arrest. Defendant voluntarily opened the back compartment ... without any coercion or threat. The evidence thus obtained ... was admissible. The search was legal, both because it ... followed a legal arrest and because it followed a voluntary ... disclosure by the accused. Dittberner v. State, 155 ... Tenn. 102, 291 S.W. 839; Elliott et ux. v. State, ... 173 Tenn. 203, 116 S.W.2d 1009; Stone v. State, 161 ... Tenn. 290, 30 S.W.2d 247; Hughes v. State, 145 Tenn ... 544, 571, 238 S.W. 588, 20 A.L.R. 639 ... The ... fourth assignment of error is: ... ...
-
Thompson v. Carson
...that Phelps had information that Thompson was about to commit a felony, and therefore a search warrant was unnecessary. Dittberner v. State, 155 Tenn. 102, 291 S.W. 839; Goodwin v. State, 148 Tenn. 682, 257 S.W. Thompson claims in the instant case that the search warrant was void because of......