Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24,935 |
| Citation | 149 N.E. 891,197 Ind. 144 |
| Parties | Robinson v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---Search of defendant and his automobile held to violate defendant's constitutional rights.---Officers' search of defendant and his automobile without a search warrant held in violation of defendant's constitutional rights under Art. 1, 11 of the Constitution (63 Burns 1926). p. 147.
2. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---Mere suspicion, without knowledge or apparently reliable information that a crime has been or is being committed, does not authorize an arrest and search on a charge of felony.---Mere suspicion, without knowledge or apparently reliable information that a crime has been or is being committed, does not authorize an arrest and search even on the charge of having committed a felony. p. 147.
3. ARREST.---Authority of peace officers to arrest without warrant for misdemeanors is limited to arrests for offenses committed in view of arresting officer.---The authority of peace officers to arrest without warrant for misdemeanors is limited to making arrests for offenses committed in view of the arresting officer (10865, 12014 Burns 1926, 8782, 9549 Burns 1914). p. 147.
4. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---Knowledge that man is "bootlegger" does not authorize his arrest and search of his person and automobile without some evidence that a crime has been committed.---The fact that a person is known to be a "bootlegger" does not authorize his arrest and search of his person and automobile without a warrant, and evidence obtained by such unlawful search should be excluded on his motion to that effect. p. 147.
5. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Evidence that defendant was reputed to be a "bootlegger" not competent in prosecution for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor.---In a prosecution for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor evidence that the defendant was reputed to be a "bootlegger" was incompetent as it would not tend to prove that he was guilty of the crime charged. p. 147.
From Delaware Circuit Court; Clarence W. Dearth, Judge.
Carl Robinson was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Reversed.
J. T Walterhouse and Thomas V. Miller, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General and Arnet B. Cronk, for the State.
Appellant was charged by affidavit with a misdemeanor, in that, at Delaware county in the State of Indiana, on December 4, 1924 he "did then and there unlawfully transport intoxicating liquor, contrary," etc. The jury returned a verdict finding him guilty as charged, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $ 100 and imprisonment for thirty days, on which the court rendered judgment. Overruling his motion for a new trial is assigned as error. The trial court permitted certain police officers to testify to facts that arose out of and were connected with an attempt on their part to search appellant's automobile and his person at and just before the time of his arrest. The undisputed evidence, given by the officers themselves, was that they were not in uniform and did not have a search warrant, or a warrant of any kind; that at about nine o'clock on a dark night, they saw an automobile being driven east on Second street past the place where a Ford coupe was standing near the north curb of that street facing west, with two men sitting in it and the lights turned out; that the driver of the automobile turned on his dimmers as he crossed the street west of the Ford car, and drove east past it, and after the officers had walked a square south, they again saw the same automobile going north one square farther east; that they hastened back to the Ford coupe and searched it (but nothing appears as to what, if anything, they found in it), and just then, the same automobile again came east along the street, and one of the officers came around from back of the Ford coupe and jumped on the running board of the automobile; that it was enclosed with plate glass on the sides, and the officer pounded on the glass with a flashlight in an effort to break it, but could not; that the officers did not see or know who was...
To continue reading
Request your trial