Faut v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 25407.,25407. |
| Parties | FAUT v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Elkhart Circuit Court; James S. Drake, Judge.
Arthur Faut was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Deahl & Deahl, of Goshen, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and Harry L. Gause, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant and another were charged by affidavit with having unlawfully transported intoxicating liquor in an automobile truck in violation of section 7, c. 48, p. 146, Acts 1925 (section 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 eleven 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 name, address, or business.
The sergeant detailed some deputy sheriffs who were in the police station at the time to go after the truck, giving to them the information which he had just received. When the officers overtook the truck, it was going about 15 miles an hour and was being driven by appellant. As the deputy sheriffs in their automobile came alongside the truck, one of the officers told appellant to pull over to the curb and stop. He did so after driving about 100 feet, and after the officers, one of whom had a pistol in his hand, had several times shouted to him to stop.
The truck was of the tank type, the sides of which ran up three or four feet, and was oval on top. It had a black body, larger than the usual truck tank, but had no lettering on it. It bore an Illinois license plate on the rear, but had no license plate in front. It had rear doors with a padlock on them, and did not have any faucets such as regular oil tank trucks have. The officers testified that they saw no faucets on the rear of the truck, and there was no testimony that there were faucets anywhere on it. Otherwise it had the appearance of an old greasy oil truck.
When stopped, appellant and his companion laughed or smiled, got out of the truck, were placed under arrest by the officers and searched for firearms. One of the officers asked if they had a key to the padlock and was informed that they had not. Another officer found that the padlock was not locked, pulled it open, opened the door, then opened a second or inner door and saw...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern Trust Co. v. Thompson
... ... The bill prays that the court by its decree determine and state whether complainant shall accept and carry out, or reject, the proposed offer of settlement and compromise made by Thompson by delivering and finally ... ...
- Faut v. State