Patterson v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 19 December 1924
• Citation: 206 Ky. 258,267 S.W. 160
• Parties: PATTERSON v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

267 S.W. 160

206 Ky. 258

PATTERSON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 19, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County.

Walter Patterson was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquors and he appeals. Affirmed.

W Tanner Ottley, of Burkesville, for appellant.

Frank E. Daugherty, Atty. Gen., Gardner K. Byers, Asst. Atty. Gen and J. G. Smith, of Albany, for the Commonwealth.

CLAY J.

Appellant was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and insists that none of the evidence was admissible.

The evidence for the commonwealth may be summarized as follows The sheriff and his two deputies, who had warrants for the arrest of other parties, went to a place in Clinton county, known as Brown's Crossroads. While waiting there, they saw a light coming down the hill and went to meet the light. When the man carrying the light came near, they flashed their light on him, and his horse shied and turned in the opposite direction. The sheriff caught hold of the bridle and flashed his light in the rider's face, and, after inquiring who appellant was, and where he was going, said, "You are not the man I'm looking for." About that time they smelled whisky, and saw a pair of saddlebags under appellant, and a grass sack, with something in it, lying across the front of his saddle. Thereupon the sheriff asked what was that that smelled so loud. Appellant answered, "Boys, you have got me," and then offered to give them a half gallon of whisky if they would turn him loose, at the same time saying that the whisky he had was not paid for. The officers refused to take any of the whisky, but brought appellant to the county judge's office in Albany, where they searched the grass sack and saddle pockets and found in them four gallons of whisky. They had no warrant of arrest or search warrant for appellant, had no reason to believe that he had committed a felony, and, prior to stopping him, had smelled no liquor, and he had committed no offense in their presence.

If after stopping appellant, the officers had then proceeded to search him, a different question would be presented; but that is not the case. On the contrary, they did not attempt to search appellant then, but informed him that he was not the man they were looking for. After that, they asked appellant what it was that smelled so loud, and appellant said, "Boys, you have got me," and then offered to give them a half gallon of...