Houck v. State
| Citation | 106 Ohio St. 195,140 N.E. 112 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1922 |
| Docket Number | 17422,17421 |
| Parties | Houck v. The State Of Ohio |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Constitutional law-Intoxicating liquors-Unlawful transporta-tion-Section 6212-43, General Code (109 O. L., 95)-Search and seizure without warrant-Knowledge by officer of law -Violation unnecessary, when.
1. Section 6212-43, General Code (109 O. L., 95), is a valid exercise of legislative power under the authority of Section 9, Article XV of the Ohio Constitution, and Section 2 Article XVIII of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution.
2. A search of an automobile by an officer and a seizure by him of intoxicating liquors then being possessed and transported in violation of law, without a search warrant, is authorized though the officer has no previous knowledge of such violation, provided he acts in good faith and upon such information as induces the honest belief that the person in charge of the automobile is in the act of violating the law.
3. A search and seizure under such circumstances is not unreasonable and therefore does not transgress Section 14 Article I of the Ohio Constitution
The facts are stated in the Opinion.
Mr. H E. Kreitzer and Mr. W. S. Rhotehamel, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. F M. Cunningham, prosecuting attorney; Mr. W. Chester Maple, city solicitor; Mr. James A. White and Mr. Chas. M. Earhart, for defendant in error.
These two cases were admitted in this court upon motion, and come from the court of appeals of Warren county. Plaintiff in error Houck was originally tried in the mayor's court of Lebanon, Ohio, on charges of possessing and transporting whisky contrary to the provisions of Section 6212-15, General Code. Houck is a resident of Dayton and on Thanksgiving evening, 1921, drove to Lebanon in a Ford runabout in which there were concealed in the back part thereof eight bottles of whisky, and parked the machine on one of the principal streets of Lebanon. The marshal of Lebanon had been informed that a week or two previous, on a Saturday evening, Houck had been bootlegging in Lebanon, and had seen Houck on his former visit under apparently suspicious circumstances. The marshal observed the car, and upon examination discovered the whisky. He thereupon placed the bottles in the front end of the car and, after notifying the sheriff of the county, awaited Houck 's return, and arrested him upon charges of possessing and transporting whisky. Prior to the trial Houck made application for the return of the liquor, claiming that his constitutional rights were violated by reason of his automobile being searched and the whisky seized without a search warrant or other legal process. At this hearing Houck took the witness stand in his own behalf, but when asked upon cross-examination why he had the whisky in his car, and how it came to be there, refused to answer on the ground that it would incriminate him. The magistrate refused to order the return of the whisky and upon trial Houck offered no evidence in his de- fense and was found guilty. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction.
It was contended in the court of appeals and is again contended in this court that the seizure of the goods without a search warrant, and the arrest of Houck without process first obtained, was a violation of his constitutional right.
Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, is invoked, which reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the person and things to be seized."
The sections of the code authorizing arrests with-out process are Sections 4386 and 13492, General Code. The purport of those sections is that an officer shall arrest and detain a person found guilty of violating any law or ordinance of the state until a warrant can be obtained. Another code section which is more definitely applicable to the present controversy is Section 6212-43, General Code, the pertinent provisions of which are: "When * * * any officer of the law, shall discover any person in the act of transporting in violation of law, intoxicating liquors in any wagon, buggy, automobile water or air craft, or other vehicle, it shall be his duty to seize any ad all intoxicating liquors found therein being transported contrary to law * * * and shall arrest any person in charge thereof."
The question is therefore presented whether finder the circumstances of the case the officer had a right to search the automobile without a search warrant and whether he had a right to take Houck into...
To continue reading
Request your trial