Murphy v. State, 24941.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 24941.,24941. |
| Citation | 197 Ind. 360,151 N.E. 97 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Knox Circuit Court.
James Murphy was convicted of unlawfully and feloniously transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Ralph E. Jones, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
A. L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and George J. Muller, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted of unlawfully and feloniously transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile in violation of section 1, chapter 34, Acts of 1923. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and on appeal, said ruling is assigned as error. The causes for a new trial were that the verdict of the jury was not sustained by sufficient evidence and the verdict was contrary to law.
[1] By the undisputed evidence, the following facts were shown: That on October 17, 1924, a motorcycle policeman of the city of Vincennes was riding on one of the streets of that city. As he met a truck, the appellant, driving a Ford automobile, drove from behind the truck and forced the motorcycle almost off the street. The officer called upon appellant to stop, then turned around, and rode up to the side of the automobile. He asked appellant a question, and as he did this he saw a two-gallon jug in the automobile. As the officer saw the jug, the appellant drove away. After he had gone about 50 or 60 feet, the policeman overtook him. While the automobile was traveling that distance, a man in the front seat with appellant broke the jug with a hammer, and a liquid ran out on each side of the car in a stream. The policeman smelled the odor of white mule whisky. The officer ordered the appellant to drive to the city hall, which he did after asking the former if he had a revolver and learning that he did have. At the city hall, part of the liquid in the automobile was saved. Same was white mule whisky.
[2] It is contended by the appellant that the evidence of the officer should not have been admitted, as he did not have a search warrant and did not see appellant commit a misdemeanor or a felony. The law in regard to making an arrest without a warrant is that all judicial officers, peace officers, and certain others may arrest and detain any person found violating any law of this state, until a legal warrant can be obtained. Burns' 1914, § 2013. And it is well settled that a peace officer may arrest without a warrant when he has reasonable and probable cause for believing that a felony is being or has been committed by the person arrested. Deering v. State (1874) 49 Ind. 56, 19 Am. Rep. 669;Harness v. Steele (1902) 64 N. E. 875, 159 Ind. 286;Thomas v. State (1925, Ind. Sup.) 146 N. E. 850. No arrest was made when appellant was first stopped, and no search was made of his automobile at that time. In Boyd v. United States (C. C. A. 1923) 286 F. 930, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial