State v. Bliss
| Decision Date | 04 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 29136.,29136. |
| Citation | 18 S.W.2d 509 |
| Parties | STATE v. BLISS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court Miller County; Henry J. Westhues, Judge.
W. P. Bliss was convicted of transporting three gallons of corn whisky, and he appeals. Affirmed.
R. F. White and R. P. Stone, both of Eldon, for appellant.
Stratton Shartel, Atty. Gen., and Walter E. Sloat, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In an information filed in the circuit court of Miller county, defendant was charged with transporting, on February 25, 1928, three gallons of corn whisky. The verdict of the jury found defendant guilty as charged in the information, but it was stated therein that the jury was unable to agree upon the penalty. Thereupon the court assessed the punishment at two years in the penitentiary. Defendant appealed.
The defendant failed to introduce any evidence. The evidence for the state warrants the finding that defendant, on February 25, 1928, about 3:30 a. m., was seen by the sheriff and his deputy to alight from an automobile that drove up and stopped in front of a building in Eldon, Miller county, and to proceed with a suitcase in his hand toward a stairway, erected on the outside of the building, and leading from the sidewalk to the floor above where defendant resided. A grocery was operated on the ground floor of the building. The sheriff followed the defendant and accosted him after he had advanced four or five steps up the stairway, whereupon defendant handed the sheriff the suitcase and said: "You have got me, it is whisky, that's what it is." Thereupon the sheriff took the suitcase to the sidewalk, and defendant said: "You can open it, it is not locked." It was testified that the whisky found in the three-gallon jugs in the suitcase was corn whisky. Other relevant facts will be adverted to in the course of the opinion.
I. Defendant filed a motion, which the court overruled, to suppress the evidence on the ground that it was procured in violation of section 11, art. 2, of the Missouri Constitution, inhibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. The evidence on the motion shows that the sheriff acted without a search warrant or a warrant of arrest. He could not see the whisky in the suitcase before he seized it. He said that he was informed that defendant was on his way to get a supply of whisky before he began his watch for defendant's coming. When he first apprehended defendant, he asked him to open it up, and defendant remarked, "It's liquor is what is in it." Defendant then gave the sheriff the suitcase, and, upon being asked by the deputy to open it, defendant replied: "You go ahead and open it, it's not locked."
It is only unreasonable searches and seizures that the Constitution denounces, and the consent of a defendant to the search and seizure of his property renders the search and seizure reasonable and not a violation of the Constitution. The defendant herein did not protest against the acts, and thus impliedly, at least, he consented to the sheriff searching and seizing his suitcase. But defendant's consent went further, for he not only admitted that the suitcase contained liquor, but he expressly consented that it be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. LaMance
...having requested the officers to make the search, was estopped to assert that such a search was unlawful or unreasonable. [State v. Bliss, 8 S.W.2d 509, l. 510.] Appellants insists that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty. In the briefs the parties agreed that this ......
-
State v. Tull
...739. Moreover, defendant Tull by telling the officers they could proceed without a search warrant waived the necessity thereof. State v. Bliss, 18 S.W.2d 509; State Lee, 11 S.W.2d 1044. The issue of fact as to whether voluntary consent to search was given was for the trial judge. He evident......
-
State v. Burney
...to the gun handed to the deputy sheriff. State v. Wright, 77 S.W.2d 462, 336 Mo. 135; State v. Tull, 62 S.W.2d 392, 333 Mo. 152; State v. Bliss, 18 S.W.2d 509; State Allen, 251 S.W. 69. (2) Appellant in her point number 2, in her motion for new trial alleged the court erred in allowing the ......
-
State v. Powers
... ... 3 in his motion for ... new trial is insufficient for review. Sec. 4125, R. S. 1939; ... State v. Thompson, 92 S.W.2d 892, 338 Mo. 897; ... State v. Barbata, 80 S.W.2d 865; State v ... Londe, 132 S.W.2d 501, 345 Mo. 185; State v ... Allen, 261 S.W. 69; State v. Bliss, 18 S.W.2d ... 509; State v. Tull, 62 S.W.2d 389, 333 Mo. 152; ... State v. LaMance, 154 S.W.2d 110, 338 Mo. 484; State ... v. McGee, 83 S.W.2d 98, 339 Mo. 1082 ... Bohling, ... C. Westhues and Barrett, CC., concur ... ... BOHLING ... ...