Roberson v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

• Decision Date: 01 April 1966
• Parties: Waymon Ray ROBERSON v. The METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY. *
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

Page 902

412 S.W.2d 902

56 Tenn.App. 729

Waymon Ray ROBERSON v. The METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON

COUNTY. ^*

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section.

April 1, 1966.

Skinner & Couch, Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr., Nashville, for defendant in error.

OPINION

SHRIVER, Judge.

This cause originated in the arrest of Waymon Ray Roberson on a charge of driving without a driver's license. He was tried in the Traffic or Metropolitan Court of Nashville-Davidson County, and was found guilty as charged and fined $25.00. From this judgment he appealed to the Circuit Court where the case was tried on the record and oral proof before Judge Roy A. Miles without the intervention of a jury and again he was found guilty of driving without a license and the judgment of the Metropolitan Court was affirmed. From this judgment the defendant has appealed to this Court and has assigned errors.

It is insisted by the defendant that he was arrested by a Metropolitan Policeman at a time when he was not visibly violating any traffic laws or other laws of the municipality or state and that, therefore, his arrest was unlawful.

He also insists that the warrant on which he was tried was insufficient on its face and failed to set out a cause of action or inform the defendant of the offense of which he was charged and was, therefore, void.

A photostatic copy of the warrant complained of is made exhibit in the record and appears to be regular in every respect. The warrant is properly dated, sets out the name of the defendant, his address, date of birth, etc., and in the space provided for the driver's license number is written the words; 'None.' It shows the make of the automobile which he was driving and the street on which he was driving when arrested. On the reverse side of the warrant there is a space designated; 'Other violations' and in this space is written; 'Driver's license law--C--24--577--ordinance.'

We think this warrant is clearly sufficient on its face, therefore, the assignment of error based upon its invalidity is overruled.

The Bill of Exceptions shows that at the trial in the Circuit Court only one witness was called, to wit: Frank Wade, a metropolitan policeman, who testified in substance as follows: That he has been on the metropolitan police force for four years; that on April 24, 1965, he arrested Waymon Roberson for driving a car without a driver's license, the arrest being made at Second Avenue and Division Street in Nashville.

When asked to relate the circumstances leading up to the arrest he testified that three or four weeks prior to this arrest the defendant had told him that he had no driver's license because it had been revoked for drunk driving in another county. He testified that this information was given him during a stolen car investigation. At this point defendant's counsel objected to anything that happened on a prior occasion as being immaterial to the issues then being tried, but this objection was overruled and an exception noted. The officer then testified that on a former occasion he saw Roberson's car go by at a high rate of speed but was unable to catch up with it, however, he did get the license number and on checking it out found that it belonged to Roberson. He further testified that Roberson had reported his car stolen and, during Roberson's questioning by him, Roberson denied that he was the driver of the car on the occasion above mentioned. The officer testified that following the customary routine in investigating reports of stolen cars, he asked Roberson about his driver's license and found that Roberson did not have a driver's license. Subsequently, on April 24, 1965, he was near the place of employment of the defendant and saw him driving his car, whereupon, he stopped him and asked to see his driver's license and Roberson had no license. He then placed him under arrest and had his automobile towed in, and took Roberson to the Police Station.

On cross-examination he testified that Roberson was not visibly violating a moving traffic law immediately prior to his arrest, and that he issued no other ticket at the time of the arrest.

Roberson did not take the stand and this was all the evidence before the Court.

The Statute in question, Section 59--709, T.C.A. provides that a license must be carried and exhibited on demand and provides penalties for failure to have such license. It provides that when operating a motor vehicle the licensee shall display his license on demand of a Justice of the Peace, a Peace Officer, a Field Deputy or Inspector of the Division, provided, however, that it shall be unlawful for any law enforcing officer of the State, except a State Patrolman or officer of this Division, to demand the exhibition of said license unless the operator of the motor vehicle shall then be, or immediately prior to such demand, have been engaged in a violation of any municipal ordinance or statute law of this state. Those found guilty shall be fined not less than two dollars ($2.00), nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00).

In Robertson v. State, 184 Tenn. 277, 198 S.W.2d 633; it was said by the Supreme Court that in...