State v. Brant, 52288

Citation260 Iowa 758,150 N.W.2d 621
Decision Date02 May 1967
Docket NumberNo. 52288,52288
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. John BRANT, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Anthony M. Critelli, Des Moines, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Stephen C. Robinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ray A. Fenton, County Atty., Des Moines, for appellee.

MASON, Justice.

Defendant John Brant was charged by indictment with robbery with aggravation contrary to sections 711.1 and 711.2, Code, 1966. He entered a plea of not guilty. Trial to a Polk County jury resulted in a verdict of guilty. Defendant's motion for new trial was overruled and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary at Fort Madison not to exceed 25 years.

From this final judgment defendant appeals, assigning as error the trial court's overruling his motion to suppress certain evidence and in permitting it to be admitted for the jury's consideration.

April 13, 1966, Geisler's Maid-Rite, 621 Locust Street, Des Moines, was robbed by an armed assailant of $52.80. Indictment was returned May 12 and defendant filed his motion to suppress before trial.

I. Defendant alleged in this motion that his sport coat, topcoat and a 38-caliber revolver were taken from him by police officers April 14 in violation of his rights under Amendment 4 of the Federal Constitution; the police officers when taking the property were not possessed of a search warrant; had ample time and opportunity to obtain one and in failing to do so rendered the taking of the property unconstitutional; defendant was not under arrest at the time the articles were taken from him although he was later taken into custody.

After the State filed its resistence, a hearing was held. The testimony of Frank Weideman and Frank Punelli, Des Moines detectives, was offered by the State. Defendant testified in his own behalf.

At this initial hearing Weideman testified he was assigned to investigate the Maid-Rite incident and after talking to Clarence Drake, the manager, a composite picture of the assailant was obtained; after showing the picture to some people he found whom it might be. Accompanied by Punelli he went to the Franklin Hotel and was advised John Brant had room 410. They went to the designated room, knocked at the door and were met by a man. The officers identified themselves to this man who said his name was John Brant and agreed to talk to them in his room. They advised defendant they were investigating an alleged robbery and asked if he would come to the police station with them. Brant said he would and when asked if he wanted to put on his coat, he said 'yes.' Punelli handed him his sport coat which was lying on a chair. The officer testified defendant also wanted his topcoat which was on a hall tree across the room and officer Punelli gave it to him.

Weideman testified he had previously received a description of the coat and topcoat the assailant wore the night of April 13 and these fit the description. He observed Punelli remove a 38-caliber revolver from the topcoat.

After Punelli produced the gun, Weideman told Brant he was under arrest but did not specifically state the charge. The incident in the hotel took place about 3 p.m. and defendant was charged with the crime under indictment at approximately 4 p.m. that day.

Detective Punelli testified he was assigned with Weideman to investigate the Maid-Rite incident, went to room 410 in the Franklin Hotel, was met at the door by defendant, they identified themselves as police officers and when Weideman asked if they could come in, Brant said 'Yes.' Defendant was advised of the officers' purpose in coming to his room. Brant asked, 'What restaurant?' He was told 'the Maid-Rite on Locust.' Punelli corroborated Weideman's testimony about asking Brant if he wanted his sport coat which was hanging on a chair and Brant's reply 'yes.' He testified Weideman asked Brant if he wanted his topcoat which was on a rack or pole and Brant said 'yes.'

Punelli testified he went over, picked up the coat and felt a weight, looked down and saw the butt of a revolver sticking out of the inside pocket. The officer removed the gun and found it loaded with four shells.

As Punelli held the gun Weideman told Brant he was under arrest. Just before Punelli took the gun from the coat pocket Brant stated, 'I guess that's it' or 'that's all.' He had not yet been advised by either officer that he was under arrest.

On cross-examination Punelli testified he did not shake the coat down and did not actually see the gun until he picked the coat up and felt its weight.

The officers did not have a search warrant.

Defendant testified when the officers came to his hotel room and asked if he would go to the restaurant, he told them 'no.' Asked if he wanted to wear a coat, he said 'yes' and when asked, 'Which one?', answered 'my sport coat.'

He further testified 'Weideman asked if I wanted to wear my topcoat and I said 'no.' At this time Punelli was going around the bed and toward the coat rack. He picked up my topcoat off of the rack and that's when he found the gun in the pocket. He did not ask to take my topcoat; (I) did not authorize anyone to get that coat.'

Following the hearing the court overruled defendant's motion.

At the trial defendant renewed his objections to the offer of the evidence involved and they were overruled.

II. Defendant adopted a correct procedure for questioning the admissibility of the articles into evidence by filing and securing a hearing on this motion prior to trial.

The trial court overruled the motion as to each ground and in its entirety by making a calendar entry. Perhaps such entry is sufficient here but it is suggested that a trial court who conducts such initial hearings where the validity of a search or the admissibility of evidence is involved might well support his ruling by findings of fact and conclusions of law, as suggested in State ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke, 27 Wis.2d 244, 133 N.W.2d 753, 764. Such procedure may prove quite helpful.

III. Defendant contends that generally searches are proper under two circumstances: (1) when made under the authority of a validly-issued search warrant, and (5) when incident to a lawful arrest. When made without a warrant, searches must be based on necessity and in this situation will be permitted when officers are (a) protecting themselves, (b) depriving the prisoner of a means of escape, or (c) avoiding the destruction of evidence.

It is admitted the officers in this case had no search warrant. Applying the necessity principle, defendant argues the State cannot successfully maintain under the circumstances here that the officers took the coat to protect themselves, the revolver being in the inside coat pocket on a rack on the opposite side of the room; or they were taking a means of escape from defendant by blocking the door; or were preventing the destruction of evidence, the topcoat and revolver.

Defendant strongly urges that the officers' purpose in entering his hotel room was to search rather than arrest since the arrest was made after the property was discovered; the officers...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 2 Octubre 1969
    ...themselves in anything other than a lawful manner. To imply as it is done by the majority otherwise is unfair. In State v. Brant (1967), 260 Iowa 758, 150 N.W.2d 621 the court held that where the defendant consented to officers entering his hotel room and one officer picked up defendant's c......
  • State v. Short, 12–1150.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 18 Julio 2014
    ...declared that the asserted right of officers to “thrust themselves into a home” is a matter of “grave concern.” State v. Brant, 260 Iowa 758, 763, 150 N.W.2d 621, 625 (1967). In Agnello v. United States, the two concepts of the warrant requirement and the importance of the home merged. 269 ......
  • State v. Ochoa
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 17 Diciembre 2010
    ...We have declared that the right of officers to thrust themselves into the home is a matter of "grave concern." State v. Brant, 260 Iowa 758, 763, 150 N.W.2d 621, 625 (1967). We have generally maintained that a "search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate is required before a private resid......
  • State v. Lowe
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 15 Marzo 2012
    ...that “the right of officers to thrust themselves into the home is a matter of ‘grave concern.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Brant, 260 Iowa 758, 763, 150 N.W.2d 621, 625 (1967)). In short, there is ample support for the common sense notion that we should be especially solicitous of the privacy i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT