Robertson v. State
| Citation | 198 S.W.2d 633,184 Tenn. 277 |
| Parties | ROBERTSON et al. v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1947 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court, Shelby County; Robt. G. Kinkle, Judge.
Roy S Robertson and another were convicted for unlawfully transporting alcoholic beverages, and they bring error.
Reversed and remanded.
Robinson & Robinson, of Memphis, for plaintiffs in error.
Allison B. Humphreys, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In this case plaintiffs in error, hereinafter referred to as defendants, were jointly convicted for unlawfully transporting within, into and through the State of Tennessee more than three gallons of alcoholic beverages, without posting a bond with the Commissioner of Finance and Taxation of the State of Tennessee, and their punishment was fixed at a fine of $200 each and confinement in the workhouse for a period of 90 days. From this conviction the defendants have appealed and assigned errors, four in number.
The only evidence introduced on the trial of the cause was that furnished by the State's witnesses, two State Highway Patrolmen.
The proof is that on February 25, 1946, Sergeant F. P. Fransioli and Patrolman S. M. Dean, of the State Highway Patrol, were driving in a squad car on Highway 78 in Shelby County. They noticed ahead of them a tan Chevrolet Coupe, with two visible passengers on the front seat, and bearing a Mississippi license plate. This car was being driven in an orderly fashion, with no violation of law attending its operation. The only thing that attracted the attention of the officers was that the passenger on the seat opposite the driver looked back through the rear window in a way that made them suspicious. Of what they were suspicious there is no proof. They had with them a list of stolen cars and they checked the car ahead of them against this list, finding it not to be included on that list. They were satisfied that it was not a stolen car. They continued to follow the car and again the man on the front seat stared through the rear window at them. This car turned off Highway 78 on to another road. They continued to follow. There was no insignia on the State car, but the officers were in uniform. The officers did not know whether the occupants of the Chevrolet car were drunk or what might be wrong. In fact, they testified they did not know what was suspicious. Sergeant Fransioli said to Patrolman Dean, 'Let's check him and see what is the matter with him.' Accordingly they drove up alongside the defendant's car, blew the siren and motioned the defendants to pull their car over on to the shoulder of the road. This was done. They had decided to ask for the driver's license. When the car stopped the officers got out of their car, Sargeant Fransioli going up on the right side of the defendants' car about half way its length and Patrolman Dean going to the door on the left, where Patrolman Dean asked to see the driver's license. The driver Robertson, reached in his pocket to get his pocketbook containing the license, and opened the door of the car stepping out. He produced the license, which was respected by Officer Dean and found to be correct. It was then that this officer, looking through the open door of the car which extended back further than the driver's seat, saw a box or carton labeled 'Ben Franklin' whiskey. Other packages were on top of this, with a blanket or quilt thrown over them. Officer Dean called to Sergeant Fransioli that there was whiskey in there. They did not know the contents of the box which they saw until the box was removed from the car and opened, whereupon it was found to contain whiskey. In the space behind the driver's seat and in the trunk were various packages of whiskey and other intoxicants aggregating more than three gallons. The defendants were taken to Police Headquarters where, according to State's witnesses, defendant Robertson denied having anything to do with the liquor, and defendant Whalen said it was his.
On the trial of the case, the defendants' counsel raised the question as to the admissibility of the testimony of the officers on the ground that this evidence was obtained by an illegal search and seizure, and the matter was the subject of a preliminary investigation before the Judge, in the absence of the jury. The trial Judge held the evidence admissible and the jury was recalled. Again, in the hearing before the jury, the testimony of the officers was objected to on the same ground, but was admitted over the objection and exception of the defendants. The first three assignments are based on the inadmissibility of the evidence of the officers on whose evidence alone the conviction was had.
The protection of the people from illegal searches and seizures has from colonial days been a subject of great concern and of great importance. The Constitution of the State of Tennessee provides in Article I, Section 7, 'That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offenses are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be granted.'
In the case of Craven v. State, 148 Tenn. 517, 256 S.W. 431, 432, this Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Green, said:
* * *
* * *
'Our statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v Hicks
...that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), and our opinion in Robertson v. State, 184 Tenn. 277, 198 S.W.2d 633 (1947), seem to substantially undermine the constitutional propriety of these two statutes. See also State v. McCulloch, 906 ......
-
State v. Jennette
...search is presumed unreasonable under Tennessee law. See, e.g., Fuqua v. Armour, 543 S.W.2d 64, 66 (Tenn.1976); Robertson v. State, 184 Tenn. 277, 283, 198 S.W.2d 633, 635 (1947); Kelley v. State, 184 Tenn. 143, 145, 197 S.W.2d 545, 547 (1946); Lawson v. State, 176 Tenn. 457, 459, 143 S.W.2......
-
State v. Lucas
...person making the arrest." West v. State, 221 Tenn. 178, 184, 425 S.W.2d 602, 605 (1968) (citations omitted); Robertson v. State, 184 Tenn. 277, 284, 198 S.W.2d 633, 635-36 (1947) (citations omitted); State v. Williams, 914 S.W.2d 940, 947 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). An arrest may be [e]ffecte......
-
United States v. Anderson
...subterfuge for a search, it is an unlawful exercise of that authority and constitutes an unlawful arrest. * * * Robertson v. State (1947), 184 Tenn. 277, 198 S.W.2d 633, 6363. Another statute of the state of Tennessee, T.C.A. § 59-408, empowers an officer of the Tennessee department of safe......