Lacaze v. State
| Citation | 254 Miss. 523,183 So.2d 176 |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 43811,43811 |
| Parties | Joseph M. LACAZE v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Leon L. Shelton, Jackson, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the First District of Hinds County, Mississippi, wherein the appellant was tried and convicted under Mississippi Code Annotated section 2044 (1956) for the possession of burglar's tools, and sentenced to serve five years in the State Penitentiary.
The essential facts in this case are briefly as follows: McDowell Road runs east and west in southwest Jackson. It is intersected by Dale's Lane which runs north and south. On the north side of McDowell Road, there is a shopping center known as Appleridge Shopping Center. On the south side McDowell Road there is a row of offices and stores, part on McDowell Road and part on Dale's Lane, to the south, around and corner. At the south end of the southwest corner of the block in which these stores and offices are located on Dale's Lane is a weed patch in an undeveloped area, and a gravel road extends east.
At approximately 1:40 A. M. on Sunday. September 28, 1964, city policemen, Officers Bailey and Boggan, were patrolling this area in their police car. Proceeding west on McDowell Road, they turned into the Appleridge Shopping Center, with their lights off, and made a tour around the buildings, checking the doors. When they came from behind the buildings at the southwest corner of the shopping center, they looked in a southeasterly direction across McDowell Road toward the buildings located on the south side thereof, where they saw two men 282 feet away, walking westwardly about ten feet apart, in front of Holloman's Drugstore, which is located on the south side of McDowell Road facing north, toward Appleridge Shopping Center. The police officers proceeded across the parking lot of Appleridge Shopping Center in their automobile at approximately five miles per hour, gradually increasing their speed up to fifteen or twenty miles per hour. Just before crossing the parking lot to McDowell Road, they were forced to wait for a car to pass.
As the officers approached the two men, they started walking toward Dale's Lane and turned and proceeded south on Dale's Lane. The closer the car approached the two men, the faster the man walked. Rookie Officer Robert Bailey drove his car between the two men, and both officers jumped out of the car. Bailey caught Richard Goff, who was in front. The other man ran around the corner into the high weeds, in spite of the fact Officer Boggan had his shotgun in his hand and had pumped it and commanded him to halt. He escaped and was never seen again, though Officer Boggan went to the edge of the weed patch and looked for him. Shortly thereafter, a car came out from the gravel road in the vicinity of the weed patch and Officer Boggan ran out and pointed his shotgun at the occupant of the car and ordered him to stop. The driver of the car, who is the appellant here, got out on the driver's side, on order of Boggan, and walked down and stood beside the car.
Both men were brought around on the right side of the police car. While Officer Boggan held the shotgun on the two prisoners, Bailey went around the back of the buildings and investigated and found that none of the buildings had been forcibly entered. When Bailey returned to where Lacaze and Goff, were, Boggan gave the shotgun to Bailey, who held it on the two men while Boggan called for help from detectives. Both men stated to the officers that they knew each other and had come to Jackson together, but they said they did not know the name of the man who got away. Upon being asked by the officers what they were doing at the shopping center, Goff replied that he was 'looking for where a girl lived.' Officer Bailey could identify only Goff as one of the men whom he had seen in front of the drugstore.
Within ten minutes, Detectives Sanders and Freeman arrived. When they arrived they found the appellant standing in front of his car or the police car and one of the officers had him covered with a shotgun 'at port shoulder.' The record discloses that the detectives were informed by the police officers as to what they had seen. Based on what was told them by the officers, Detective Fred Sanders placed the appellant under arrest. The detective at this time was standing in front of his car. Detective Sanders testified that all he had to go on was what the policemen had told him and that he placed appellant under arrest for investigation of burglary. Appellant testified that he asked for permission to cut off the lights of his car so as not to run the battery down, and this he was permitted to do. The keys to the trunk of the car were obtained by the detectives, the trunk was opened, and a search was made by them. Detective Sanders assisted in unloading the trunk of the car, in which the detectives found an oxygen tank, such as is used by doctors, and an acetylene torch. There was a small tool box in the back in which there were wrenches. There was also a blue suitcase which contained a tube, cutting torches and gauges for the tanks. None of this was hooked up for use or connected. Also in the car were a wrecking bar, a keyhole saw, a five pound sledge or wrecking hammer and a jack, tools, wrenches, pliers, one pair brown cloth gloves, one roll of rubber tubing, two fusees such as are placed beside stalled or wrecked automobiles at night to warn travelers using the highway, and other small items.
The record discloses that the appellant was detained subject to being arrested; that appellant was arrested before the officers searched his automobile. The record shows that on cross-examination Detective Sanders first stated that he arrested the appellant for investigation of burglary. Subsequently he said he arrested him for burglary. The proof reveals that ultimately the appellant was indicted for possession of burglar's tools.
The cross-examination of Detective Sanders discloses the following:
Q. You detained him subject to being arrested. And what you based your arrest on was what you found in the back of his car.
A. No, sir. The man was already under arrest, as I said, Mr. Shelton, before that. I arrested the man before we searched his automobile. I told him--I pointed to him and Mr. Goff, that they was under arrest.
Q. Yes, sir, but you had no charge to arrest him on, did you?
A. Under the circumstances, yes, sir.
Q. What?
A. The circumstances prevailing in the case there as shown by Officer Bailey.
Q. You were holding him but you had made no arrest. You were holding him for a charge. Is that true?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You detained him there until you could determine what had happened.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when you found these tools you charged him with possession of burglary tools.
A. Yes, sir.
The cross-examination of Police Officer Robert Bailey discloses the following facts:
Q. All right. Now, at the time Officer Boggan in your presence stopped the Defendant with this sawed off shotgun, what crime or misdemeanor, if any, had the Defendant committed?
A. He hadn't committed any at the time then.
Q. He hadn't committed any?
A. No, sir.
Q. All right, sir. Well, did he commit any at any time in your presence?
A. Well, he was--we found possession of burglary tools on him, in his car.
Q. I am trying to direct you, though, Officer * * *.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To the time when you stopped him. When you stopped him, did you have any reasonable grounds to believe that he was committing a crime or a misdemeanor?
A. Well, it is very suspicious of a car coming out at that time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial