Elliott v. State
Decision Date | 28 May 1938 |
Citation | 116 S.W.2d 1009,173 Tenn. 203 |
Parties | ELLIOTT et ux. v. STATE. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court, Madison County; Frank L. Johnson, Judge.
Homer Elliott and wife were convicted of transporting and possessing liquor, and they bring error.
Reversed.
Murchison & Manheim and Roger G. Murray, all of Jackson, for plaintiffs in error.
W. F Barry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Elliott and wife were convicted under an indictment charging transporting and possessing liquor and fined $100 each, and Homer Elliott was sentenced to serve thirty days in the County workhouse. Appealing they complain that (1) their arrest was unlawful, and (2) the search of their car was unauthorized, and that the testimony of the officers as to their discovery of the liquor was, therefore, inadmissible. The facts are thus fairly stated on the brief for the State:
Counsel for plaintiffs-in-error say, first, that the officers apparently suspected, for reasons not appearing, that the car contained liquor and that they stopped their car at the point shown hoping to find some pretext upon which to make an arrest; that this arrest was not bona fide, that the defendants had violated no traffic law or regulation.
Conceding the plausibility of the insistence that the arrest was itself unlawful, we find it unnecessary to determine that question, in view of the conclusion hereinafter announced on the second complaint made on behalf of the plaintiffs-in-error, that the search which disclosed the liquor exceeded proper limitations, even if the arrest for this traffic violation was lawful.
The Attorney General cites the following statement of the general rule:
The Attorney General also quotes from 56 C.J. 1198, the following:
The italics in the foregoing excerpts are ours. The words italicized are significant, as hereinafter shown.
This case presents the question, not heretofore directly dealt with in any reported case in this State, to what extent is a search without a warrant of the person and property of an accused justified by a lawful arrest for an alleged breach of the peace,--here a violation of a traffic law,--committed in the presence of the officer.
We italicize the significant words, "to what extent"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adair v. State, 40795
...Brinegar v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 229, 262 P.2d 464 (1953); State v. Scanlon, 84 N.J.Super. 427, 202 A.2d 448 (1964); Elliot v. State, 173 Tenn. 203, 116 S.W.2d 1009 (1938). In the case at bar the appellant's person was not searched until after the search of the automobile revealed the pistol. ......
-
People v. Watkins
...circumstances to determine whether the search was warranted. Cf. People v. Blodgett, 46 Cal.2d 144, 293 P.2d 57; Elliott v. State, 173 Tenn. 203, 116 S.W.2d 1009; People v. Gonzales, 356 Mich, 247, 97 N.W.2d 16; See: Einhorn, The Exclusionary Rule in Operation, 50 J.Crim.L., C. & P.S. 144, ......
-
McCanless v. Evans
...whiskey as supporting evidence to convict this man of being engaged in the sale of whiskey, under the holding in Elliott v. State, 173 Tenn. 203, 116 S.W.2d 1009, but it further appears that they never at any time made might properly be called a "search". All the whiskey they found there an......
-
State ex rel. Carlson v. State
...obtain evidence of the offense for which he was arrested. Hughes v. State, 145 Tenn. 544, 238 S.W. 588, 20 A.L.R. 639; Elliott v. State, 173 Tenn. 203, 116 S.W.2d 1009. There is no constitutional mandate requiring a preliminary hearing under procedure in this State. State ex rel. Reed v. He......