High v. State

• Decision Date: 17 January 1949
• Citation: 217 S.W.2d 774,188 Tenn. 166
• Parties: HIGH v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

217 S.W.2d 774

188 Tenn. 166

HIGH v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 17, 1949

Rehearing Denied March 11, 1949.

Error to Circuit Court, Sumner County; Dancey Fort, Judge.

Major Daniel High was convicted of drunken driving and he brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

Murrey & Murrey, of Gallatin, for plaintiff in error.

Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PREWITT, Justice.

The defendant was convicted of driving while drunk and his punishment fixed at a fine of $10 and sixty days in jail.

On February 17, 1928, some town officers of Gallatin, together with a State Highway patrolman, were in front of the police station when a passing motorist told them there was a disturbance going on about two blocks from the police station, tat this disturbance was going on near an old Plymouth car on the street with a Kentucky license, and that a woman was screaming and crying at or about this car. The officers rushed to the scene, and as they approached the spot, they saw a car answering this description pull out from the curb and start down the street. Getting out of their car they stopped the Plymouth automobile and found the defendant driving. The testimony is that he was drunk, and that in the rear of the car there were two Negro women showing signs of intoxication.

The defendant introduced no testimony but made timely objections upon the theory that his condition was observed by reason of an unlawful search and seizure.

In Smith v. State, 155 Tenn. 40, 42, 290 S.W. 4, the Court quoting from State v. Rogers, 84 Tenn. 510 515, said:

"The policeman, above all officers, requires the protection of arms. His duty is not like sheriff and constables, to serve process, and make such arrests as required. He is a watchman, both by day and night, in our cities, to seek for probable offenders and offenses, and to arrest parties guilty, as the guardian of the homes and business houses of our people living in cities, charged with watching for offenders, both by day and night, and especially at night. He is entitled to the utmost liberality in the construction of the statute in his favor.'

'The security and safety of residents of a city is dependent upon the faithful performance of the duty to described on the part of the members of a metropolitan police force.'

A policeman is the protector of the municipality which he serves, and common prudence demanded that these officers...