Faut v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | 25,407 |
| Citation | 168 N.E. 124,201 Ind. 322 |
| Parties | Faut v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS---Transportation in Automobile---Duty of Peace Officers.---Section 33 of the Prohibition Law of 1925 (2748 Burns 1926) makes it the duty of officers of the law to seize intoxicating liquors if they discover any person in the act of unlawfully transporting such liquor in an automobile or other vehicle. p. 325.
2. ARREST---Peace Officers' Right to Arrest---For Felony.---Peace officers may arrest without a warrant when they have reasonable and probable cause for believing a felony is being or has been committed. p. 325.
3. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES---Rules of Law as to Search---As to Houses---As to Automobiles and other Vehicles.---The rules of law regulating the search of a house are not the same as those applicable to the search of automobiles or other vehicles which can be quickly moved, and, under proper circumstances, an automobile or other vehicle may be searched without a search warrant. p. 325.
4. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES---Search of Automobile---When Valid.---To authorize officers to search all automobiles on the chance of finding liquor would be unreasonable, but if a search of an automobile without a warrant is made on probable cause (that is, upon a belief reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the searching officer that the vehicle contains that which by law is subject to seizure and destruction), the search is valid. p. 325.
5. INTOXICATING LIQUORS---Transportation in Automobile---Constitutes a Felony---Search Without Warrant.---Since, under 2720 Burns 1926, the transportation of intoxicating liquor in an automobile or other vehicle constitutes a felony, officers who have reasonable and probable cause to believe that such felony is being committed may search such vehicle without a warrant and seize any contraband liquor found therein (2748 Burns 1926). p. 326.
6. INTOXICATING LIQUORS---Search of Automobile Tank Truck---Information Warranting Search.---Information received over the telephone from an anonymous informant that an automobile-tank truck was then transporting intoxicating liquors through a city was not alone sufficient to justify police officers in making a search of such truck, but when acting upon such information, they found that such truck had no faucets, and no lettering, name or other advertising matter thereon, only one license plate, and that from anoth- er state, and such truck was stopped only after repeated demands by armed officers, and the demeanor of occupants was not indicative of innocence, a search thereof for intoxicating liquors was warranted. p. 326.
From Elkhart Circuit Court; James S. Drake, Judge.
Arthur Faut was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile truck, and he appealed.
Affirmed.
Deahl & Deahl, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General, and Harry L. Gause, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant and another were charged by affidavit with having unlawfully transported intoxicating liquor in an automobile truck in violation of Acts 1925, ch. 48, § 7, § 2720 Burns 1926. The appellant was arraigned, stood mute, and declined to enter a plea, whereupon the trial court entered a plea of not guilty for him. Before the commencement of the trial, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the arresting officers on the grounds that they made a search of his automobile without having a search warrant in their possession; that, at the time of the arrest, the officers did not see him in the commission of any felony or misdemeanor and that the officers were not aware of their own knowledge of any facts which would reasonably lead them to believe that he was engaged in an unlawful act. By agreement of the parties, the ruling on the motion to suppress was postponed until after the hearing of the evidence upon the trial, when the same was overruled and a finding of guilty was made. Judgment was rendered assessing a fine in the sum of $ 500 and imprisonment in the Indiana Reformatory for a period of not less than one year nor more than two years.
The error assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial. Such motion was upon 11 grounds or reasons, which present the single question of the legality of the search and admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby.
The facts, as shown by the evidence, and about which there is no dispute, are as follows: A police sergeant on duty at the police station in Elkhart received information over the telephone that an automobile truck with a square-type oil-tank body with several five-gallon milk cans along its side was passing through the city with a load of "booze" (intoxicating liquor); that it had been going through the city quite frequently; that it was at the corner of Second and Jackson Streets going west and that the police could land it if they would get busy. The person who telephoned asked to talk to the sergeant or man in charge, but did not give his own name, address, or business. The sergeant detailed some deputy sheriffs, who were in the police station at the time, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial