Manson v. State, No. 30955

Docket NºNo. 30955
Citation11 Ind.Dec. 293, 229 N.E.2d 801, 249 Ind. 53
Case DateOctober 02, 1967
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 801

229 N.E.2d 801
249 Ind. 53
Arlene MANSON, Jefferson Thomas Suber, Appellants,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 30955.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Oct. 2, 1967.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1967.

[249 Ind. 54]

Page 802

John T. Grimes, Kokomo, Albert Ewbank, Indianapolis, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Dennis Dewey, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Judge.

The appellants were charged and found guilty of grand larceny and sentenced accordingly. They have appealed. The specifications are that the trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress evidence obtained in the search of defendant Suber's automobile. The points presented in the briefs center mainly about this contention.

The evidence shows that officer Frank Rose of the Kokomo police department received a radio message over the police radio system that there were two colored subjects at Maplecrest shopping center and believed to be in Golightly's store, and they were seen in a blue 1960 Oldsmobile with Indianapolis[249 Ind. 55] prefix on the license number, and that they had put some stolen merchandise in the trunk. When officer Rose arrived, he went to Golightly's store at the shopping center and apparently found the two colored persons and followed them as they circled about the store, came out and went into another store known as Grants, made a

Page 803

small purchase and then went to the parking lot to the Oldsmobile described in the radio message. Mr. Suber, the appellant, started his car and the officer then arrested him 'for shoplifting.'

The officer says that he did not see the appellants do anything which would cause him to believe they were shoplifting, but he did have reason to believe because of the police call that there was stolen merchandise from the shopping center in the trunk of the car. He thereupon searched the car and in the rear trunk found a laundry bag with eight suits on clothes hangers and pants still on clothes hangers, rolled up; also a lady's cost that had a $100.00 price tag thereon. None of the merchandise in the back of the car was wrapped for purchase. The officer stated that appellant Suber said upon inquiry that the merchandise came from the Golightly store.

It is undisputed that a search of a car without warrant after a lawful arrest of the one in possession is not constitutionally interdicted. Carroll v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543; 25 I.L.E., Search & Seizure, § 22, p. 422.

Parenthetically, we may say appellant Manson has no standing to ask that the evidence obtained in the search of the car be suppressed, since she did not onw it, and was not in possession or control of it. 25 I.L.E. Search & Seizure, § 5, p. 417.

It is argued that there was no probable cause for the police officer to make the arrest and subsequent search based upon the arrest, for the reason that the only information he had was based upon the police radio message to him from the dispatcher at police headquarters. In support of that it is further [249 Ind. 56] urged that the radio broadcast made from police headquarters was based solely upon the hearsay of Mrs. Donna Umbarger, who was informed by unnamed persons that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Watt v. State, No. 2-1178A382
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 3, 1980
    ...(1963), 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441; Ashley v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 359, 241 N.E.2d 264, 268; Manson v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 53, 229 N.E.2d 801, cert. den. 390 U.S. 995, 88 S.Ct. 1198, 20 L.Ed.2d 95. See also Rohlfing v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 619, 88 N.E.2d 148, In determ......
  • Clark v. State, No. 20S05–1301–CR–10.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 17, 2013
    ...later discoveries. “It is the law that the fruits of the search cannot be used to support or justify an illegal search.” Manson v. State, 249 Ind. 53, 56, 229 N.E.2d 801, 803 (1967). 25. Sergeant McHenry ran the warrant check at sixteen minutes after midnight. Seven minutes later, the check......
  • State v. Parkinson
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • June 5, 1978
    ...A.2d 431 (1965); Bradshaw v. State, 192 So.2d 387 (Miss.1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 941, 88 S.Ct. 299, 19 L.Ed.2d 293; Manson v. State, 249 Ind. 53, 229 N.E.2d 801, 803 (1967); People v. Arnold, 91 Ill.App.2d 282, 233 N.E.2d 764 (1968); People v. Avery, 31 A.D.2d 885, 298 N.Y.S.2d 104 (19......
  • Greer v. State, No. 1068
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 16, 1970
    ...support for the action of the police, in this case. Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 454, 217 N.E.2d 147, Manson et al. v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 53, 229 [253 Ind. 616] N.E.2d 801. The United States Supreme Court has said in this 'The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to del......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Watt v. State, No. 2-1178A382
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 3, 1980
    ...(1963), 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441; Ashley v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 359, 241 N.E.2d 264, 268; Manson v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 53, 229 N.E.2d 801, cert. den. 390 U.S. 995, 88 S.Ct. 1198, 20 L.Ed.2d 95. See also Rohlfing v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 619, 88 N.E.2d 148, In determ......
  • Clark v. State, No. 20S05–1301–CR–10.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 17, 2013
    ...later discoveries. “It is the law that the fruits of the search cannot be used to support or justify an illegal search.” Manson v. State, 249 Ind. 53, 56, 229 N.E.2d 801, 803 (1967). 25. Sergeant McHenry ran the warrant check at sixteen minutes after midnight. Seven minutes later, the check......
  • State v. Parkinson
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • June 5, 1978
    ...A.2d 431 (1965); Bradshaw v. State, 192 So.2d 387 (Miss.1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 941, 88 S.Ct. 299, 19 L.Ed.2d 293; Manson v. State, 249 Ind. 53, 229 N.E.2d 801, 803 (1967); People v. Arnold, 91 Ill.App.2d 282, 233 N.E.2d 764 (1968); People v. Avery, 31 A.D.2d 885, 298 N.Y.S.2d 104 (19......
  • Greer v. State, No. 1068
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 16, 1970
    ...support for the action of the police, in this case. Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 454, 217 N.E.2d 147, Manson et al. v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 53, 229 [253 Ind. 616] N.E.2d 801. The United States Supreme Court has said in this 'The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to del......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT