Hall v. State

• Decision Date: 21 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 47601,47601
• Citation: 288 So.2d 850
• Parties: Shelton HALL v. STATE of Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 850

288 So.2d 850

Shelton HALL v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47601.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 21, 1974.

Charles, A. Ray, Jr., Hazlehurst, Jack A. Morris, Monticello, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Chief, Justice:

Shelton Hall was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lawrence County on an indictment charging possession of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). On his appeal to this Court he questions the validity of a warrantless search of his automobile made simultaneously with his arrest but while he was not inside the vehicle or immediately beside it.

Hall was wanted in neighboring Lincoln County on a burglary charge, and a warrant had been issued for his arrest. In an effort to solve a series of burglaries that had occurred in Lawrence County, Sheriff N. S. Lambert and Deputy Sheriff Willard Griffin, who knew of the arrest warrant for Shelton Hall, were working at night. In the early morning hours they observed the defendant driving down a road leading to the residence of Carl Hall, a cousin of the defendant. Defendant was observed as he parked his car in front of Carl Hall's house. He sheriff and his deputy were an foot, and they decided to seek assistance and walk the two miles back to Monticello where Sheriff Lambert contacted Highway Patrolman Ralph Fick and Monticello Policeman J. P. Rutland. The four officers devised a plan to apprehend defendant which was carried out as hereafter stated.

Deputy Griffin and Policeman Rutland went around a road that passed to the rear of Cal Hall's residence, parked their vehicle and came through the woods to a point near the back door of the residence. When they stationed themselves at this point, they called the highway patrolman and the sheriff over the two-way radio and told them they were ready. The patrolman and Sheriff Lambert, who were in the patrol car, then drove the patrol car up to the front door of the Carl Hall residence, at which time defendant ran out the back door where he was apprehended by the two officers who were stationed at that point. Sheriff Lambert searched the defendant's station wagon while the defendant was being arrested but before he was aware that Hall had been secured and found the LSD in a cigar box located under the front seat. The defendant was handcuffed when he was arrested and brought around to the front of the house and was then removed to jail. Deputy Griffin drove the defendant's automobile to the jail where he made a later search which was fruitless.

Defendant contends that the search of his automobile was illegal for at least two reasons: (1) Defendant was not in the automobile when he was arrested, and the search of his automobile went far beyond his person and the area from which he might have obtained a weapon or something that could be used as evidence against him; and therefore, the search was not justified as being incident to the arrest, citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). (2) The circumstances were not exigent because it was practicable to obtain a search warrant, citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).

The State contends the search was lawful as one made incident to a lawful arrest, and among its cited authorities are Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973); Watts v. State, 196 So.2d 79 (Miss.1967), and Fuqua v. State, 246 Miss. 191, 145 So.2d 152 (1962).

A warrantless search is generally unreasonable, but there are a number of exceptions. However, '(t)he labels do not always fit. Many decisions turn, not upon the labels, but upon a close analysis of the facts.' Carlton v. Estelle, 480 F.2d 759 (5th Cir. 1973). There is a constitutional difference between searches of houses and cars. Cady v. Dombrowski, supra. For reasons stated in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); and Wolf v. State, 260 So.2d 425 (Miss.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S 1042, 93 S.Ct. 535, 34 L.Ed.2d 492 (1972), the warrantless search of an...