Goodman v. State

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Smith, C. J.
• Citation: Goodman v. State, 158 Miss. 269, 130 So. 285 (Miss. 1930)
• Decision Date: 13 October 1930
• Docket Number: 28925
• Parties: GOODMAN v. STATE

130 So. 285

158 Miss. 269

GOODMAN v. STATE

No. 28925

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 13, 1930

Division A

Suggestion of Error Overruled, November 10, 1930.

APPEAL from circuit court of Lowndes county, HON. J. I. STURDIVANT Judge.

E. L Goodman was convicted of having intoxicating liquor in his possession, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

B. B. Fraker, of Columbus, for appellant.

It is admitted by the officers that before they turned around in the road to follow appellant, the only cause for believing that he had whiskey in his possession was his reputation as a dealer in intoxicating liquor. This court has repeatedly held that probable cause for beginning a search must rise higher than mere belief on the part of the officer.

Hamilton v. State, 115 So. 427; McNutt v. State, 108 So. 721; Chrestman v. State, 114 So. 748.

And that the information must be of the present.

Gardner v. State, 110 So. 589.

If an automobile is searched illegally, there can be no legal arrest of its occupants by reason of any information gained by means of an illegal search.

Snyder v. United States, 285 F. 1; Iupe v. State, 105 So. 520.

The appellant was searched without a search warrant and without probable cause.

In Ricks v. State, 111 So. 752, this court held that "The carrying of a bottle of whiskey owned and controlled by another from one room into another room, for the purpose alone of taking a drink, is not a violation of the statute. That does not constitute having, controlling, or possessing the liquor in the sense of the statute.

Edwin R. Holmes, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

This court has repeatedly held that a search of the premises of a person or of his car may be conducted without a search warrant if the officers conducting the search have reason to believe, and do believe, that they will find intoxicating liquor in the car or on the premises, and such search is legal if based on probable cause.

Holmes v. State, 146 Miss. 351, 111 So. 860; Hamilton v. State, 149 Miss. 222; McNutt v. State, 143 Miss. 347; Chrestman v. State, 148 Miss. 673; Gardner v. State, 145 Miss. 215.

No error was committed on the trial of this case in the court below with regard to the admissibility of the testimony of officers Smith, Caldwell and Dowdle, as their search of the car in which appellant was riding was based on probable cause and their search of appellant's person was conducted after a legal arrest.

OPINION

Smith, C. J.

The appellant was convicted of having intoxicating liquor in his possession. The evidence discloses that three police officers were traveling at night in an automobile and passed an automobile parked on the side of the road in which were the appellant, Mason, and Aldridge, who were recognized by the officers. After passing the automobile, the officers turned their automobile around and started back toward the parked automobile, which immediately began to move forward; it being headed in the direction the officers were then traveling. Some one in the forward automobile then held a jug out of the automobile and poured liquor therefrom, which the officers recognized by its odor as being alcoholic. They then increased the speed of their automobile, passed the other, and caused it to stop. The testimony of one of the officers in this connection is as follows: "We turned around and came back and they were going away and we fell in behind their car and they began pouring the liquor out. That was when we proceeded to catch them and arrest them." The occupants of the car were then searched, and a bottle of intoxicating liquor was found in one of the pockets of the appellant.

The officers had no warrant for the search either of the automobile or of the persons occupying it, and an objection to the admission of their evidence on this ground was overruled. The officers further testified that they had been informed that Goodman, the appellant, was engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquor and used an automobile for the purpose of transporting it; that this was his general reputation; and that when they saw him and his companions in the parked automobile, they suspected that he then had intoxicating liquor in his possession, and for that reason turned their automobile around and approached that of the appellant.

All of the evidence hereinbefore set forth was admitted over the objection of the appellant, the ground of his objection being that it was obtained by means of an unlawful search. In support of this contention, the appellant says that the search of his automobile began when the officers turned their automobile around and proceeded toward his automobile, and that they were then without probable cause to believe that he was in possession of intoxicating liquor. The evidence does not disclose that the officers intended to search the appellant's automobile when they turned around and approached it; but it is clear that they approached the automobile for the purpose of confirming or disproving their suspicion that the appellant had intoxicating liquor therein. When they saw intoxicating liquor being thrown out of the automobile, they then, of course, not only had good reason to...