State Of West Va. v. Hatfield
| Decision Date | 07 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7212) |
| Citation | 112 W.Va. 424 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | State of West Virginia v. Hobart Hatfield and BarnesOsborne |
Officers, with information of the commission of a felony, may, for the purpose of apprehending the perpetrator thereof, stop all persons using the highway in the vicinity of the crime in the nighttime for the purpose of identification.
Where an automobile is so stopped, and the occupants thereof, by their acts reveal a present violation on their part, such officers may arrest such offenders, and, as an incident thereto, search the automobile. And the evidence of crime found in such search may be used against the occupants thereof.
Error to Circuit Court, Mingo County. Hobart Hatfield and another were convicted for the larceny of certain merchandise, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
W. II. I). Preece, for plaintiff in error. Howard B. Lee, Attorney General, and B. A. Blessing, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Hobart Hatfield, Barnes Osborne, Enoch Darby and Bud Bailey were jointly indicted (1) for breaking and entering a certain building in Mingo County, belonging to Red Jacket Consolidated Coal & Coke Company and used as a store building, with intent to commit larceny; (2) for entering said building without breaking, etc.; and (3) for the larceny of certain merchandise of the total value of $419.34. Darby and Bailey confessed to the breaking and entering and the removal of the mechandise. Hatfield and Osborne, however, stood trial, denying any knowledge of the theft. The state, after introducing her evidence in chief, elected to proceed on the third count. The present writ of error is prosecuted to a judgment entered on a jury verdict of "guilty as charged in the within indictment."
Defendants state that they left home (Amico, Raleigh County), in Osborne's Essex coach, early April 15, 1930, for Red Jacket, a distance of 130 miles, in search of work; that about four o'clock, P. M., and while in the vicinity of Red Jacket, Darby and Bailey obtained Osborne's ear to go to Matewan to "look around" while Osborne and Hatfield walked up the hollow a mile and a quarter to certain coal operations to inquire about work; that Osborne and Hatfield waited from dark until midnight for the return of Darby and Bailey; that upon their arrival Osborne inquired concerning the merchandise which he found stacked in the back of his ear, and was advised that it had been purchased at a sale; thereupon Osborne resumed his place at the wheel, Hatfield and Darby in the front seat with him, and Bailey, the smallest, located himself upon the merchandise. After the parties had travelled about 18 miles in the direction of home, they Were flagged by state police, who checked the license plates with the registration card. During this interrogation, an occupant of the car threw something over the bank, which one of the officers found to be a pearl handle 32 caliber pistol. Thereupon the four men were placed under arrest and directed to alight, and the car searched without any protest on the part of its former occupants. The search revealed a large quantity of merchandise, later found to belong to Red Jacket Consolidated Coal & Coke Company, and two shot guns, a brace and bit and a jimmie belonging to the defendants.
Without reciting further facts, it suffices to say that the evidence clearly supports the verdict, providing the reference to the goods found in the car was proper. Defendants contend that the latter was inadmissible, it appearing that the officers did not have a search warrant for the car. They cite State v. Andrews, 91 W. Va. 720, 114 S. E. 257, and State v. Wills, 91 W. Va. 659, 114 S. E. 261, in support of their proposition. The latter case holds that an unlawful search amounts to an unreasonable search within the meaning of our Constitutional inhibition. The state admits that the officers did not have a search warrant for Osborne's automobile, or have knowledge or information that the occupants thereof had committed any crime, at the time they stopped it. The officers do, however, testify that they were patrolling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Weger
...cert. denied, 379 U.S. 978 (85 S.Ct. 679, 13 L.Ed.2d 568) (1965); State v. Zupan, 155 Wash. 80, 283 Pac. 671 (1929); State v. Hatfield, 112 W.Va. 424, 164 S.E. 518 (1932).'9 The Reporters' footnote here reads: '9. See Commonwealth v. Lehan (347 Mass. 197), 196 N.E.2d 840 (Mass.1964), and au......
-
State v. Taft, 11035
...at the time of the arrest. State v. Roberts, 136 W.Va. 391, 68 S.E.2d 48; State v. Rigsby, 124 W.Va. 344, 20 S.E.2d 906; State v. Hatfield, 112 W.Va. 424, 164 S.E. 518; 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 26, page The defendant complains of the action of the Court in granting the following in......
-
People v. Morales
...632; State v. Dilley, 49 N.J. 460, 231 A.2d 353; People v. Mickelson, 59 Cal.2d 448, 30 Cal.Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658; State v. Hatfield, 112 W.Va. 424, 164 S.E. 518.) This court recognized the common-law authority of law enforcement officials to detain persons for investigation as a reasonabl......
-
Brower v. Inyo County
...in state court, the practice has uniformly been upheld. Kagel v. Brugger, 19 Wis.2d 1, 119 N.W.2d 394 (1963); State v. Hatfield, 112 W.Va. 424, 164 S.E. 518, 519 (1932). See generally J. Cook, Constitutional Rights of the Accused: Pre-Trial Rights, Arrest Sec. 8 (1972 & 1984...