State v. Aias
Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
Citation | 149 So.2d 400,243 La. 945 |
Docket Number | No. 46293,46293 |
Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Norbert AIAS and Ann Aias. |
Decision Date | 14 January 1963 |
George H. Fust, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The defendants, Norbert Aias and Ann Aias 1 were charged by bill of information with a violation of LSA-R.S. 40:962, in that they did wilfully and unlawfully possess and have under their control a narcotic drug, to wit: Opium and Morphine, contrary to the form of the Statute of the State of Louisiana. They were tried by jury and convicted, and each was sentenced to serve five years in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at hard labor.
On appeal to this court, defendants present for our consideration one bill of exceptions, which applies to a reservation made upon the overruling of a 'Motion to Suppress Evidence,' (hereinafter discussed), a reservation made during trial and a reservation made upon the overruling of a motion for a new trial--the subject matter of each ruling and reservation of a bill of exceptions being the same.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant information, as deduced from the testimony attached to the bill of exceptions are to the effect that on March 2, 1961, Officers William Warner, Raymond Comstock and Larry Hand of the Narcotics Squad of the New Orleans Police Department were notified by a New Orleans physician that a lady named Johnson residing in the 1400 block of Esplanade Avenue 'continually bothered' him for paregoric prescriptions. The fficers went to the Esplanade address where they were told by the landlord that defendants and a Miss Malone, who had also lived at the Esplanade address, had moved to Elysian Fields Avenue; he did not know the house number but told the officers where Miss Lalone worked.
The officers proceeded to the La Mour Lounge, in the 800 block of N. Rampart Street, where they questioned Evelyn Malone after telling her that they were on a narcotics investigation, and she cooperated with them.
Evelyn Malone's testimony was to the effect that Ann Aias had told her that she was going to search for a larger house and that if she found one Evelyn could live with her and she would take care of Evelyn's baby while Evelyn was at work; that she and Ann found a place on Elysian Fields Avenue and the first half month's rent was paid by Ann in the name of Johnson; that she had paid rent to Ann and she and Ann rented together from the landlord; that she had a bedroom but the whole house was considered partly hers, her belongings being in the living-room, bathroom and kitchen.
Miss Malone told the officers she was living with Lynn Johnson and Norbert Aias and gave them permission to search the residence (which bears Municipal Number 1235 Elysian Fields Avenue); her employer permitted her to leave her job, and she accompanied the officers to the premises.
Officer Comstock testified 2 that upon their arrival at the house he and Officer Hand went to the rear entrance; that upon reaching the rear of the house, he could smell an odor of paregoric and assumed that it was being cooked or had just been cooked; 3 that he and Officer Hand then forced the rear door open, because he felt that evidence was being destroyed. He stated that upon entering the house, he found the following evidence in the kitchen: He further testified that he and Officer Hand passed through the kitchen, seeing what they determined to be narcotic paraphernalia spread out on the kitchen table, and continued to the front of the house where he came upon Norbert Aias standing in the second room from the front. Officer Comstock stated, '* * * as I got within about two feet of him, I saw him drop a hypodermic needle to the floor Mrs. Johnson, was near the front door.' Mrs. Johnson, was near the front door.'
While Officers Comstock and Hand were conducting their investigation in the rear, Officer Warner and Evelyn Malone were at the front door.
Officer Warner testified that Miss Malone attempted to open the front door with her key, but that the door was locked with a safety lock from the inside and the key would not open the door; that Miss Malone knocked and the following events transpired:
(Emphasis ours.)
No search warrant was secured by the officers before they searched the premises, confiscated evidence, and arrested the defendants. A qualitative analysis made of the cooked down paregoric disclosed that it contained opium, which when separated into some of its component parts contained morphine and codeine. The present prosecution ensued.
Before trial on the merits counsel for the defendants filed a 'Motion to Suppress Evidence,' alleging in part:
'That in this particular case, the evidence sought to be used by the State in its prosecution against the said Ann Aias and Norbert Aias was obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure and therefore, inadmissible in the State's prosecution of this case under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as decided in the recent case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); that the Constitutional guarantee or right of privacy and the guarantee against unlawful search and seizures granted through the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution is enforceable against the State through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as decided by the case of Mapp v. Ohio, hereinabove cited.
'The position of the U.S. Supreme Court on the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was reaffirmed in the case of William Marcus et al. v. Search Warrants of Property at 104 E. 10th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, reported in 367 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1708, 6 L.Ed.2d 1127 Reporter.
The trial court denied the above motion and a bill of exceptions was reserved to its ruling.
The matter proceeded to trial, and during its course another bill of exceptions was reserved when the trial judge refused to suppress the following evidence: S--1, one bottle from Bel Vue Drugstore; S--2, plastic bag together with contents; S--3, plastic envelope containing paper towel; S--4, brown envelope containing two needles; S--5, aluminum pot; S--6, glass; S--7, Red Cross cotton; S--8, large bottle medicine; S--9, small bottle of medicine; S--10, four empty bottles, S--11, 2 black books; S--12, empty bags; S--13, brown envelope containing tinfoil; S--16, cardboard containing names of drugstores; S--17, jax bab.
In this Court defendants contend that the trial court's ruling on the Motion to Suppress Evidence and its other rulings should be overruled and reversed and the case against defendants dismissed because:
'1. The enforcement officers had abundant opportunity to obtain a search warrant. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. James, 46857
...being of the view that the residence was within the bounds of incidental search in connection with the lawful arrest. See, State v. Aias, 243 La. 945, 149 So.2d 400; State v. Pickens, 245 La. 680, 160 So.2d SUMMERS, Justice (dissenting). My view is in conflict with that of the majority on t......
-
State v. Edgecombe, s. 52451
...or is being committed.' State v. Johnson, 249 La. 950, 192 So.2d 135. See also, State v. Green, 244 La. 80, 150 So.2d 571; State v. Aias, 243 La. 945, 149 So.2d 400; State v. Calascione, 243 La. 993, 149 So.2d 417; Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327. '(2) And......
-
State v. Vale, 49066
...or is being committed.' State v. Johnson, 249 La. 950, 192 So.2d 135; See also, State v. Green, 244 La. 80, 150 So.2d 571, State v. Aias, 243 La. 945, 149 So.2d 400; State v. Calascione, 243 La. 993, 149 So.2d 417; Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d As was very a......
-
State v. Linkletter, s. 58596 and 58893
...v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); State v. Green, 244 La. 80, 150 So.2d 571 (1963); State v. Aias, 243 La. 945, 149 So.2d 400 (1963); State v. Calascione, 243 La. 993, 149 So.2d 417 'Compliance with these standards is, in the first instance, a substantive d......