Hughes v. State, F--73--375
| Decision Date | 21 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. F--73--375,F--73--375 |
| Citation | 522 P.2d 1331 |
| Parties | Henry Clay HUGHES, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Henry Clay Hughes, Jr., hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted by jury in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF-- 72--2242, for the crime of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance, to-wit: Codeine. His sentence was fixed at five (5) years imprisonment and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
The only issue raised on appeal is the validity of a search of the defendant's person incident to his arrest for Reckless Driving and Failure to Produce a Valid State Driver's License. The sole question to be determined by this Court is whether or not a complete personal search is constitutionally permissible when incident to a valid, full custody arrest. Heretofore, the cases raising illegal searches as a foundation for appeal have been handled on a case by case basis with each case being determined according to its individual facts. As a result of widely varying factual circumstances, this approach has left the question presented here in a state of some confusion.
The fact situation before this Court is not complex. Defendant was stopped in his bar by a police patrolman because of excessive speed and reckless driving occasioned by crossing the centerline, then weaving to the opposite side of the road to the extent to running off the road. The defendant was arrested for Reckless Driving and Driving Without a Valid State Driver's License. He was handcuffed and placed in custody. The police officer then proceeded to search the defendant by putting his hands into defendant's pockets. A bottle containing Codeine pills was found and became the basis of the present conviction. The defendant argues that this search was improper and contrary to the Oklahoma State Constitution, Article 2, § 30, which provides:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures shall not be violated; . . .'
The defendant's reasoning is based on Oklahoma cases that present the theory that a search of an arrestee in this situation is limited to a 'pat-type' search for weapons only, since there are no 'fruits' of the crime of Reckless Driving or of Driving Without a Valid Operators License. The State distinguishes each of the defense counsel's supporting authorities by differentiating their factual circumstances from the present situation. Then the State supports its own position with Oklahoma authority upholding searches incident to valid arrests.
From both the defendant's cited Oklahoma authority and the Oklahoma authority cited by the State, four principles of law are apparent. (1) 'Ordinarily, a minor traffic violation will not support a search and seizure.' Lawson v. State, Okl.Cr., 484 P.2d 1337 (1971), Syllabi No. 1. (2) Incident to a valid arrest, the arrestee may be searched. Hampton v. State, Okl.Cr., 501 P.2d 523 (1972). (3) The search is limited by requiring one or both of the following justifications or purposes: (a) to discover and seize any weapon (b) to discover and seize evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested. Hampton v. State, supra; Lawson v. State, supra; Ricci v. State, Okl.Cr., 506 P.2d 601; Mahan v. State, Okl.Cr., 508 P.2d 703 (1973). (4) If, in the process of searching for evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested, other evidence is obtained, it also may be used against defendant at trial. Hampton v. State, supra. The language of these cases, having been geared to fit each individual factual circumstances, developed law inferring that any evidence sought, must be of the crime for which the arrest was made. This principle does not apply in our present situation, where the search went beyond a search for weapons, but could not have been justified by possible fruits of the crime for which the defendant was arrested.
We must, therefore, turn to the provisions of our Constitution and to the provisions of the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Article 1, § 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides:
'The State of Oklahoma is an inseparable part of the Federal Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.'
Article 2, § 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, describing as particularly as may be the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.'
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, provides:
The right of the people to be secure is their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
Article 3, § 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides, in pertinent part:
'The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . .'
Article 3, § 2 of the Constitution of the United States provides, in pertinent part:
'The judicial Power shall extend in all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, . . .'
It is fundamental, not only under the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, Article 1, § 1, that the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States by the power invested in them under the provisions of Article 3, § 1, supra, is made obligatory upon the State by our Constitution and the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by the Supreme Court of the United States is also made obligatory upon the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The provisions of Article 2, § 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution relating to search and seizure, and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, are identical.
It is, therefore, elementary that we must turn to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution in determining the legality of the search and seizure here involved, notwithstanding any prior decision of this Court.
Recently, the United States Supreme Court has clarified this issue in United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973), and its companion case, Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973). Gustafson v. Florida, supra, is very similar to our case. It involved the arrest of a driver who could not produce an operator's license. The defendant, in Gustafson, was then searched and marihuana, which was the basis of his conviction, was discovered.
These two cases emphasize that since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brisendine
...(Sizemore v. State (Ind.App.) 308 N.E.2d 400, 406; State v. Cromwell (Mo.Ct. of App.) 509 S.W.2d 144, 146; Hughes v. State (Okl.Ct. of Crim.App.) 522 P.2d 1331, 1333; see State v. Mabra, 61 Wis.2d 613, 213 N.W.2d 545, 550--551.) Hughes stated that the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution......
-
Turner v. City of Lawton
...and ultimate anarchy."36 Oklahoma did not recognize the automobile exception to the exclusionary rule until 1974 in Hughes v. State, 522 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Okla. Crim.1974).37 See notes 4, 6, 25, ...
-
Turner v. State
...and these exhibits were subsequently discovered upon a full personal search incident to a valid custodial arrest. See, Hughes v. State, Okl.Cr., 522 P.2d 1331 (1974). The defendants argue that an arrest was effectuated without probable cause after they were first approached by the undersher......
-
Alva State Bank and Trust Co. v. Dayton, 70097
...Ch. 1, pp. 4-5 (Charles C. Thomas Co. 1964).7 Turner v. City of Lawton, 733 P.2d 375, 382 (Okla.1986). See also Hughes v. State, 522 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Okla.Crim.1974).8 A. Ellis, A History of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Oklahoma, p. 58 (Economy Printing Co. 1923).9 In the m......