Pettit v. State

• Decision Date: 16 February 1934
• Docket Number: 25894
• Citation: 188 N.E. 784,207 Ind. 478
• Parties: PETTIT v. STATE
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

188 N.E. 784

207 Ind. 478

PETTIT v. STATE

No. 25894

Supreme Court of Indiana

February 16, 1934

[Rehearing denied February 18, 1935.]

1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES---Search Without Warrant---Of Automobile.---Search of an automobile, if made upon probable cause, may not be unreasonable though made without a warrant and it is not essential that such search shall have been made to effect, or as incidental to, a lawful arrest. p. 481.

2. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES---Search Without Warrant---Of Automobile.---Where police officers, who had arrested defendant, had probable cause for believing that he had committed a robbery and used his automobile in its commission, their search of defendant's automobile was held lawful, though found several miles from the place of defendant's arrest, and though the search was made without a warrant and not incidental to the arrest, where the circumstances were such that delay to procure a warrant would pobably have rendered the search impossible or impractical p. 481.

3. CRIMINAL LAW---Evidence---Admissibility---Obtained in Search of Automobile.---In prosecution for robbery, search of defendant's automobile, though made without a warrant and not incidental to arrest, held not unreasonable, and that exhibits and evidence obtained thereby was properly admitted p. 481.

Mark L. Thompson, of La Fayette, for appellant.

James M. Ogden, Atty. Gen., and E. Burke Walker, 2nd Dep. Atty Gen., for the State.

OPINION

TREANOR, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered upon a verdict finding appellant guilty of robbery. The alleged errors assigned as grounds for reversal are as follows: (1) Overruling appellant's motion or new trial; (2) overruling the amended verified motion of appellant to suppress all evidence and information obtained by and through the search of appellant's automobile; (3) permitting the admission in evidence of exhibits obtained by and through the search of appellant's automobile and in permitting certain witnesses to testify concerning what the learned by means of a search of appellant's automobile.

Appellant's motion for a new trial specified 57 separately numbered grounds, but, under points and authorities and by argument, only the following propositions are urged on this appeal: (1) The court erred in overruling appellant's verified motion to suppress certain evidence obtained through a search of appellant's automobile and in admitting in evidence exhibits and testimony as to facts learned on such search; (2) the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

It appears from the evidence heard on the issue raised by appellant's motion to suppress and the state's general denial that at about midnight, October 14th, the appellant was arrested at his home at 1119 S. Twentieth street in La Fayette by police officers of that city pursuant to a request made by police officers of the city of Crawfordsville in a telephone conversation with the La Fayette officers. In this and earlier conversations between the officers of the two cities the La Fayette officers were told that an automobile belonging to appellant had been used the preceding night in the holdup of a filling station attendant in Crawfordsville, the appellant's brother-in-law had been arrested for the offense and money stolen from the attendant found on his person; that appellant had been with his brother-in-law on the preceding night, and was the second man in the holdup. The appellant was taken, upon his arrest, to the La Fayette police station. The Crawfordsville police were called and told of appellant's arrest, and were asked if they wanted the car. They said they did. At the police station appellant told the officers that his car 'was out at his aunt's,' which was a considerable distance from the place of appellant's arrest. La Fayette police officers, accompanied by appellant, then proceeded to a garage on the premises of appellant's aunt, where they searched appellant's automobile, procuring an envelope containing money, checks, and coupons taken in the holdup, evidence of which was sought to be suppressed.

Our Constitution recognizes and protects the right of the people to be secure 'in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search or seizure.' Article 1, § 11, Ind. Const. The arrest of a person is not a violation of this constitutional guaranty against unreasonable seizure if the officers making the arrest, at the time, have reason to believe, i. e., probable cause for believing, that the person to be arrested is committing, or has committed, a felony, for which the arrest is made. In applying the constitutional provision, an automobile has been treated as falling within the classification of an 'effect' which shall be 'secure * * * against unreasonable search or seizure.' Robinson v. State (1925) 197 Ind. 144, 149 N.E. 891, 892. ^[1] In determining the question of the reasonableness of a search or seizure a different test has been applied in reviewing the search, according to whether a dwelling house or an automobile was searched. Except when made to effect, or as incidental to, a lawful arrest, a search of a private dwelling without a warrant, though upon probable cause, has been held to be unreasonable. But a search of an automobile, if made upon probable cause, may not be unreasonable, though made without a warrant, and it is not essential that such search shall have been made to effect, or as incidental to, a lawful arrest. ^[2] This rule usually has been applied to cases involving a search made under circumstances which, connected with the facts constituting probable cause, might tend to render the search impossible or impracticable if delayed until a proper warrant is secured. ^[3]

We think that the facts and circumstances in the instant case bring it within the application of such a rule. There is no doubt that the officers who went out to arrest appellant had reason to believe that h...