Gallman v. Com.

Decision Date27 February 1979
Citation578 S.W.2d 47
PartiesDavid Scott GALLMAN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Jack Emory Farley, Public Advocate, Timothy T. Riddell, Mark A. Posnansky, Asst. Public Advocates, Frankfort, for appellant.

Robert F. Stephens, Atty. Gen., Joseph R. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

REED, Justice.

David Scott Gallman, the appellant, was convicted on ten counts of trafficking in controlled substances and sentenced to twenty years in prison. The critical issue is whether evidence secured by the prosecution as the result of a warrantless search of a motor vehicle was admissible.

Although in the trial court the warrantless search was held to be permissible on the basis of a claimed consent by appellant, the Commonwealth at the oral argument and in its brief appears to concede that this justification is not sustainable. Johns v. Commonwealth, Ky., 394 S.W.2d 890 (1965). It is the contention of the Commonwealth that the search was valid because the officers had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband. No attempt is made by the Commonwealth to demonstrate the existence of exigent circumstances. In our view, the record neither establishes probable cause nor exigent circumstances and we must conclude that the search was unreasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution.

A suppression hearing was held and the following facts were established: Detective Gist received information on July 19, 1977 that the proprietors of a local pharmacy were suspicious of two young men they observed in their store. The pharmacists had "checked around" ascertaining that the pair had been seen in other pharmacies as well. The pharmacists followed the pair when they left their drug store and determined that they were staying in a motel a block from the store. Detective Gist found in checking with other motels in the area that the pair had stayed in two other motels during that week. Detective Hall and Detective Thorpe joined in the investigation. Detective Gist learned appellant's name from motel personnel about 11:00 o'clock or mid-morning. About 1:00 or 1:30 in the afternoon, Gist received a reply from an inquiry made to the Evansville Police Department concerning the appellant and his car. The Evansville police advised that a place where appellant was staying in Evansville had been searched in the preceding two-week period and narcotics had been found.

When asked whether an effort was made to obtain a search warrant, Detective Gist stated that the officers were expecting a break-in or a robbery: "That's the reason we were watching them. We had no idea that there were any drugs in the car at this time." The officers staked out the motel. They had been informed that appellant had left a wake-up call for 4:00 o'clock that afternoon. At roughly 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon the stakeout was in place. Officer Thorpe testified that the officers had no reason to feel the need for getting a search warrant at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon: "No, sir, because I didn't know the gentleman and still don't."

Detective Hall testified in part as follows:

"X Q Based on the information you had prior you saw no need to get a search warrant to obtain a search to conduct a search?

A I was prepared to get a search warrant if he did not consent to the search."

The officers testified that the appellant and another man left the motel in appellant's car between 4:30 and 5:00 p. m. and drove down West Second Street. Appellant was driving. Detective Gist stated that "their driving was questionable." The police caused appellant to curb his automobile and the two men were detained. Appellant was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants or narcotics, and his companion, David Olds, was arrested for public intoxication. One of the officers unlocked...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Reed
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 16 Junio 2022
    ..., 563 U.S. 452, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011).77 King v. Commonwealth , 386 S.W.3d 119, 122 (Ky. 2012) ; Gallman v. Commonwealth , 578 S.W.2d 47, 48 (Ky. 1979).78 Wilson v. Commonwealth , 37 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Ky. 2001).79 Id. (citing Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83......
  • Colbert v. Com., 1998-SC-1070-DG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 22 Febrero 2001
    ...over the premises. See Matlock, supra. The burden of proof to show an exception rests with the government. See Gallman v. Commonwealth, Ky., 578 S.W.2d 47, 48 (1979). Appellant argues that Kentucky law gives a more expansive reading to the protections against search and seizure than is offe......
  • Commonwealth v. Garrett
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 27 Septiembre 2019
    ...presented in this case is whether the warrantless search was made with probable cause to search but with exigent circumstances. 578 S.W.2d 47, 48 (Ky. 1979) (emphasis added). Three points applicable to this review can be found in this quote. First, a defendant has no duty before the circuit......
  • Clark v. Com.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 3 Septiembre 1993
    ...must rest upon a valid warrant. The burden is on the prosecution to show the search comes within an exception." Gallman v. Commonwealth, Ky., 578 S.W.2d 47, 48 (1979); Accord, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 356-58, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514-15, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 585 (1967). Moreover, the search......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT