Smith v. State
| Citation | 290 S.W. 4,155 Tenn. 40 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1927 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
Error to Criminal Court, Shelby County; J. Ed Richards, Judge.
Jim Smith was convicted of unlawful possession and transportation of whisky, and he brings error. Affirmed.
L. H Graves, of Memphis, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, for the State.
A policeman of the city of Memphis, on regular duty about 9 o'clock at night, saw an automobile parked in an alley 15 or 20 feet from the margin of a street. There were some houses, occupied by negroes, fronting on this alley, but it does not appear that the automobile was in front of any house or dwelling.
The policeman approached the automobile and threw his flash light on it. The light disclosed several tin cans of one-gallon capacity, and also disclosed that the cushion of the rear seat was so disarranged as to make it appear that something was concealed under it. The policeman then examined the containers, which were not concealed, and found that they were empty. He then raised the cushion of the rear seat and found nine tin cans of one-gallon capacity, each containing corn whisky.
The plaintiff in error, Jim Smith, came up shortly after the discovery of the whisky, and, upon his admission that the automobile belonged to him, he was arrested and was convicted herein for the unlawful possession and transportation of whisky.
The basis of the appeal is the contention of the plaintiff in error that his property was subjected to an unconstitutional search, resulting in the discovery of the whisky, and that the evidence so obtained should have been excluded upon his objection seasonably made in the trial court.
The policeman referred to was the only witness on the trial, and his testimony, supported by the production of the whisky which he discovered, constituted all the evidence introduced.
In State v. Rogers, 16 Lea (84 Tenn.) 510, responding to a contention that a policeman is not authorized to carry a concealed weapon unless actively engaged in search for a criminal, or in the execution of criminal process, this court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hanawahine
...1202 (1927); Safarik v. United States, 62 F.2d 892 (8th Cir.1933); Smith v. United States, 2 F.2d 715 (4th Cir.1924); Smith v. State, 155 Tenn. 40, 290 S.W. 4 (1927). A case may arise in which the manner of its use may indicate that a search had begun or that an unreasonable search had been......
-
Cox v. State
...155 Tenn. 40, 290 S.W. 4; Massa v. State, 159 Tenn. 428, 19 S.W.2d 248; Elliott et ux. v. State, 173 Tenn. 203, 116 S.W.2d 1009. In Smith v. State, supra, it was held that an inspection by police officer at night with the aid of a flashlight of an automobile parked in a dark alleyway, not i......
-
Lawson v. State
...illegal because the warrant did not authorize or direct the officer to search the automobile of defendant. In the opinion in Smith v. State, 155 Tenn. 40, 290 S.W. 4, the court emphasized the fact that it was only searches that the constitution prohibited. With respect to this constitutiona......
-
High v. State
...but made timely objections upon the theory that his condition was observed by reason of an unlawful search and seizure. In Smith v. State, 155 Tenn. 40, 42, 290 S.W. 4, Court quoting from State v. Rogers, 84 Tenn. 510, 515, said: "The policeman, above all officers, requires the protection o......