State v. Britton, 53968
| Decision Date | 14 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 53968,53968,1 |
| Citation | 444 S.W.2d 465 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Floyd Robert BRITTON, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles B. Blackmar, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
Van Matre & Van Matre, William W. Van Matre, Mexico, for defendant-appellant.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Appellant, charged with a first offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated, Section 564.440, V.A.M.S., waived jury and, upon trial to the court, was found guilty and adjudged and sentenced to pay a fine of $100. Although charged with and found guilty of a misdemeanor, appellant has preserved, and his appeal alleges, a constitutional question.
On July 6, 1966, Gerald Allen Luntsford was a police officer of Vandalia, a city of the fourth class in Audrain County, Missouri. He was wearing a uniform with badge and carried a gun. He was sitting in an automobile equipped with revolving red light and siren at the intersection of U.S. Highway 54 and Main Street in Vandalia. The intersection was controlled by a 4-way flashing red light and 4-way stop signs.
Officer Luntsford observed a 1959 Ford go north on Main Street approaching the intersection at approximately 40 miles per hour. The Ford slowed to two or three miles per hour, made a 'rolling' stop, and turned west on Highway 54. Two motorcycles were stopped at the intersection headed east in the south half of Highway 54. They had started into the intersection prior to the left turn made in their path by the Ford. Officer Luntsford, with red light flashing, began pursuit of the Ford. His intention was to arrest the Ford's driver for 'careless and imprudent driving * * * for almost hitting those two boys on the motorcycles and then in the manner he turned the corner.'
Officer Luntsford was unable to stop the Ford in Vandalia and pursued it on west on Highway 54. As he left Vandalia, Officer Luntsford used his radio to tell his base office in Vandalia to notify the state highway patrol that he was in pursuit of an automobile. During his chase he saw the Ford cross the center line 'several times' and once to go to the shoulder on the wrong side of the road. The Ford attained and maintained speeds of around 90 miles per hour during the five miles of open highway and Farber Junction where the car slowed, left the highway, and stopped.
When the Ford stopped Officer Luntsford stopped behind it and walked to the Ford to ask the driver for his operator's license. At this time he recognized the Ford's driver as Floyd Robert Britton, a man he had known for 'approximately a year, a year and a half' prior to this incident.
Shortly after the Ford stopped, Audrain County Deputy Sheriff Crow and Sergeant Paul Volkmer of the Missouri State Highway Patrol arrived pursuant to the request of Officer Luntsford relayed through Vandalia Chief of Police Steffen. Officer Luntsford gave defendant's operator's license to Sergeant Volkmer. Both Officer Luntsford and Sergeant Volkmer formed an opinion that appellant was intoxicated and Deputy Crow had the opinion appellant had been drinking. Sergeant Volkmer arrested appellant and took him to the sheriff's office in Mexico, Missouri, where Sgt. W. H. Fischbeck of the highway patrol administered a Breatholyzer test with a result of 'sixteen hundredths of one per cent blood alcohol.'
Prior to trial appellant moved, in writing, to suppress any testimony of witness Luntsford 'as to any identification of the defendant as the driver of the motor vehicle referred to in the Information * * * (on grounds that) the purported arrest and detention of defendant by Officer Luntsford for an alleged misdemeanor was illegal and void for the reason that said purported arrest and detention was made at a point outside the corporate limits of the City of Vandalia, Missouri; that said Officer Luntsford did not have a warrant for the arrest of the defendant; * * * no authority to arrest or detain defendant or to make a search and seizure at said time and place; that all knowledge and evidence obtained by Officer Luntsford as a result of such illegal arrest, detention, search and seizure is inadmissible against this defendant; * * * that to permit the use by the State of Missouri against the defendant of such illegally obtained evidence and testimony would violate the constitutional rights of the defendant as guaranteed by the Constitution of Missouri, Article I, Sections 10 and 15 and the Constitution of the United States, Amendments IV and XIV (Section 1), * * *.'
The motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whorton
...mere association with a person suspected of a crime does not, in and of itself, furnish reasonable grounds for arrest. See State v. Britton, Mo., 444 S.W.2d 465. Appellant's second point is based on the argument that evidence pertaining to any lineup procedure following an illegal arrest sh......
-
State v. Galazin
...intoxicated condition at the time of the arrest is both competent and relevant to the charge of driving while intoxicated. State v. Britton, 444 S.W.2d 465 (Mo. 1969). The only recognized exception to the requirement of a pre-trial motion, and the only one raised here by defendant, is where......
-
State v. Crawley, 57403
...State v. Hawkins, 482 S.W.2d 477 (Mo.1972). Merely stopping a vehicle and determining what can be observed is not a search. State v. Britton, 444 S.W.2d 465 (Mo.1969). The ignition key and the fact that the motor was running with the key in the 'off' position was open, obvious and apparent.......
-
State v. French
...related to a search or seizure. Invalidity of an arrest does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to try the defendant. State v. Britton, 444 S.W.2d 465 (Mo.1969). Furthermore, the circumstances here were clearly sufficient to call the officer's attention to the suspect, to raise more t......