Karlen v. State

• Decision Date: 31 December 1930
• Docket Number: 25,156
• Citation: 174 N.E. 89,204 Ind. 146
• Parties: Karlen v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

174 N.E. 89

204 Ind. 146

Karlen v. State of Indiana

No. 25,156

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 31, 1930

1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS---Arrest of Defendant---Search of Automobile---Information Held Insufficient to Show Probable Cause.---The fact that a police officer knew that some liquor was to be delivered at a certain place was not sufficient evidence to justify a finding of probable cause for the arrest of defendant or the search of the automobile which he was driving and which he abandoned on the appearance of a squad of police officers, as the knowledge of the police officer did not pertain to the defendant. p. 148.

2. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES---Suspicion Insufficient Ground for Arrest or Search.---Suspicion alone is not probable cause for an arrest of one for committing a crime or for a search of an automobile and the seizure of intoxicating liquor found therein. p. 148.

3. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES---Search of Automobile---Information of Police Officers Held Insufficient.---Where police officers were in waiting near a stone quarry, having had information that liquor was to be delivered there, the finding of alcohol in the back part of a car which defendant had driven to that point and stopped, did not justify a search of the car without a warrant, although the defendant abandoned the car on the appearance of the officers. p. 148.

4. INTOXICATING LIQUORS---Transporting in Automobile---Evidence Held Insufficient.---Where police officers searched an automobile without probable cause, the evidence obtained thereby was not competent, and was not alone sufficient to sustain a verdict against the driver of the car for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. p. 148.

5. INTOXICATING LIQUORS---Transporting in Automobile---Evidence Obtained by Unlawful Search of Automobile---Held Insufficient to Sustain Conviction.---In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile, questions eliciting evidence obtained by an unlawful search of the automobile should have been excluded, and such evidence would not sustain a verdict finding the defendant guilty of the charge p. 148.

From Delaware Circuit Court; C. W. Dearth, Judge.

Paul Karlen, Jr., was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile, and he appealed.

Reversed.

Walterhouse & Miller, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General, and Edward J. Lennon, Jr. Deputy Attorney-General, James M. Ogden, Attorney-General, E Burke Walker, Deputy Attorney-General, V. Ed Funk, Deputy Attorney-General, and Merl M. Wall, Special Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Travis J. Martin, J., dissents. Gemmill, J., absent.

OPINION

Travis, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of a fine of one hundred dollars and imprisonment in the Indiana Reformatory for not less than one year nor more than two years, rendered upon a verdict of guilty of transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile, as charged by indictment. (Acts 1923, ch. 34, p. 108.) The crime is alleged to have been committed December 19, 1924.

Errors are laid upon the decision of the court in permitting the introduction of evidence over objection, and upon giving and refusing to give certain instructions to the jury over objections; and, that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law.

Appellant, together with three others whom he had invited to ride with him, drove a coupe automobile out of the city of Muncie about seven o'clock in the evening, and stopped in the roadway next to which was a stone quarry. Previously the same evening ten police officers of Muncie, and four federal officers, had driven to the stone quarry. When appellant and his companions were at or near the stone quarry, they saw two automobiles parked at the side of the roadway, which were the ones the officers' party used to go to the quarry. Upon seeing the men one of the appellant's party asked if everything were "all right". Appellant had stopped and the four had alighted from the coupe, when the officers drew several pistols and covered the three companions of appellant, who had alighted from the right side of the car. Appellant had alighted from the driver's seat on the left side of the coupe and had run away. The officers fired many shots and placed the three companions of appellant under arrest and searched them. Thereupon the officers took the three under arrest and the coupe, to the jail at Muncie. The back part of the coupe was locked. One of the officers forced it open with a claw hammer, and found two five gallon cans of grain alcohol. One of the federal officers testified that the officers' party "pulled out to what they call the Cornbread Road, to the stone quarry," and to the question by the prosecuting attorney, "Did you know that there was to be some liquor delivered there?" answered, "Yes, sir." This narration covers the evidence in support of the verdict. The evidence does not disclose or suggest that appellant had ever committed a felony, or that any of the officers believed that he had ever committed a felony, or that he was about to commit a felony; neither does the evidence show that, at the time appellant stopped the coupe near them, he was then committing a misdemeanor, or that the officers or any one of them believed appellant was then committing a misdemeanor. The evidence does show that the officers did not have a warrant for the arrest of appellant or either of his three companions, and also, that the officers did not have a search warrant to search the three arrested, the appellant, or the coupe.

Appellant objected to questions put to the officer witnesses, which elicited answers concerning the search, for the reason that the rights guaranteed appellant by the constitution concerning search and seizure would be violated, which objections were overruled. There is such a great number of such questions and objections, that it is deemed sufficient to state the substance and purpose of the questions and the objections, to show the application of the law, without stating separately each question and the objection made to it by appellant. Neither appellant nor any one or all of his three companions were committing a misdemeanor within the knowledge of the officers, or any...