State v. Brown

Citation83 Wash. 100,145 P. 69
Decision Date31 December 1914
Docket Number12497.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. MURPHY v. BROWN.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington

Department 2. In a prosecution for bribery, on petition of defendant J J. Brown, an order was entered directing the prosecuting attorney to return to defendant $1,000 and certain papers held to be used as evidence, and the State brings certiorari. Reversed.

John F Murphy and S. H. Steele, both of Seattle, for plaintiff.

Tucker & Hyland, of Seattle, for defendant.

MAIN J.

On the 29th day of October, 1914, the defendant, J. J. Brown, was charged by information with the crime of attempting to corruptly influence an agent. Thereafter and on the 5th day of November, 1914, the defendant filed in the cause a petition wherein he prayed that $1,000 of money and certain papers then in the possession of the prosecuting attorney should be returned to him. Upon the presentation of this petition, an order to show cause was entered directing that the prosecuting attorney appear and show cause why he should not deliver the money and papers to the defendant as prayed for in the petition. On the 11th day of November, 1914, the prosecuting attorney made his return to the order to show cause. Thereupon the defendant moved for judgment as prayed for in his petition. This motion was based upon the petition of the defendant, the order to show cause, and the return of the prosecuting attorney. The court granted the motion and entered an order directing that the $1,000 and the papers be returned to the defendant. To review this order the cause is brought here by certiorari.

To avoid confusion, the parties will be referred to as the 'defendant' and the 'prosecuting attorney.' The defendant in his petition alleged, in substance: That he is a citizen of the Dominion of Canada; that on the 15th day of October, 1914, he was sojourning in room 935 of the Fry Hotel in the city of Seattle, in King county, Wash.; that on this date the prosecuting attorney in and for King county entered his room and stated to the defendant that he (the prosecuting attorney) had power and authority to arrest the defendant, although at the time the prosecuting attorney was without a warrant or authority to make such arrest; that the prosecuting attorney then commanded the defendant to go with him from his room to the office of the prosecuting attorney in the Alaska building in the city of Seattle; that, upon arriving at the office of the prosecuting attorney, he demanded that the defendant deliver to him $1,000 in money then upon the person of the defendant; that, at the time the prosecuting attorney commanded the defendant to go with him from his room in the hotel to the office of the prosecuting attorney, the latter commanded and directed the defendant to bring with him all his personal belongings, including two leather grips and their contents, which contained, among other things, papers in the handwriting of the defendant; that upon arriving at the office of the prosecuting attorney, before the issuance of a warrant, and before the filing of any complaint or information against the defendant, the prosecuting attorney demanded that the defendant surrender and deliver to him the $1,000, together with certain papers belonging to the defendant; that before the surrender of the money and the papers to the prosecuting attorney the defendant informed the prosecuting attorney that he desired to be represented by counsel, and that he desired to telephone his attorney; that the prosecuting attorney refused to permit the defendant to communicate with his counsel and restrained him of his liberty from 12:30 o'clock p. m. until 3 o'clock p. m. of the day named; that a complaint was not filed against the defendant until after the surrender of the $1,000 and the papers; that the money and papers are unlawfully held by the prosecuting attorney; that the prosecuting attorney proposes to use the money and the papers at the trial of the above-entitled cause.

Upon this petition, as above stated, a show cause order was issued. The prosecuting attorney in his return to the order to show cause denies that in room 935 in the Fry Hotel on the 15th day of October, 1913, he stated to the defendant that as prosecuting officer of King county he had power and authority to arrest the defendant; admits that he requested the defendant to come with him from his room in the hotel to the prosecuting attorney's office in the Alaska building; admits that after arriving at his office he requested the defendant to deliver to him $1,000 in money then upon the person of the defendant; admits that after arriving at his office he requested the defendant to deliver to him whatever papers were in his possession relative to the case under consideration; admits that he requested the defendant to bring his grips and papers from the Fry Hotel to the prosecuting attorney's office; admits that after arriving at his office he demanded of the defendant $1,000 in money, and in addition thereto whatever papers and documents the defendant had in his custody and possession bearing upon the question then under investigation. The prosecuting attorney in his return denies that he refused to permit the defendant to telephone to his attorney; denies that the money and papers or any part thereof are being unlawfully or improperly held; admits that he does intend to use the money and papers as evidence on the trial of the cause filed against the defendant, and that he holds them for no other purpose than to be used as such evidence. Further answering the order to show cause, the prosecuting attorney alleges: That on the 15th day of October, 1914, in addition to being the qualified and acting prosecuting attorney in King county, Wash., he was a duly appointed, qualified, and acting deputy sheriff; that on the 14th day of October, 1914, complaint had been made to him that the defendant had violated and was continuing to violate section 426 of chapter 249 of the Session Laws of 1909; that for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of this charge the prosecuting attorney on the 15th day of October, 1914, in company with others, was in an adjoining room in the Fry Hotel to the room...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Parker, No. 66147-2
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 4 Noviembre 1999
    ...against him"). Our first citation to a formal "search incident to arrest exception," however, appears in State ex rel. Murphy v. Brown, 83 Wash. 100, 106, 145 P. 69 (1914) (citing Weeks, 232 U.S. at 383, 393, 34 S.Ct. 341, for the proposition that the right to search "the person of one unde......
  • State Of Wash. v. Wright, 62142-4-I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 19 Abril 2010
    ...lawful arrest. See, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S.Ct. 341, 344, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); State ex rel. Murphy v. Brown, 83 Wash. 100, 105-06, 145 P. 69 (1914); Dillon v. O'Brien, 20 L.R.Ir. 300, 316-17 Leigh v. Cole, 6 Cox Crim.L.Cas. 329, 332 (Oxford Cir.1853). Ringer, ......
  • State v. Byrd
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 10 Octubre 2013
    ...that warrantless searches were allowed of the person of an arrestee when incident to lawful arrest” (citing State ex rel. Murphy v. Brown, 83 Wash. 100, 105–06, 145 P. 69 (1914)). And in State v. Hughlett, 124 Wash. 366, 370, 214 P. 841 (1923), overruled on other grounds by Ringer, 100 Wash......
  • State v. Salinas, 65527–2–I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 2 Julio 2012
    ...with the supposed crime, and discoveries made in this lawful search may be shown at the trial in evidence.” State ex rel. Murphy v. Brown, 83 Wash. 100, 105–06, 145 P. 69 (1914), quoted with approval in Ringer, 100 Wash.2d at 693, 674 P.2d 1240. The scope of the warrantless search of a pers......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Arrested Development: Arizona v. Gant and Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution
    • United States
    • University of Whashington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 85-2, December 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...Constitutional Convention 1889, at 497 (Beverly P. Rosenow ed., 1962) [hereinafter Journal]. 99. See, e.g.. State ex rel. Murphy v. Brown, 83 Wash. 100, 106, 145 P. 69, 71 (1914). The Washington State Supreme Court cited Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392 (1914), for the proposition ......
  • Seizing Opportunity, Searching for Theory: Article I, Section 7
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 8-02, December 1984
    • Invalid date
    ...States, 232 U.S. 383, 392 (1914); State v. Michaels, 60 Wash. 2d 638, 642-43, 374 P.2d 989, 991 (1962); State ex rel. Murphy v. Brown, 83 Wash. 100, 105-06, 145 P. 69, 71 (1914); Dillon v. O'Brien, 20 L.R. Ir. 300, 317 (Ex. D. 77. For example, if the arresting officers are unable to pat dow......
  • The Origin of Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 31-03, March 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...Wash. 2d 686, 691-92, 674 P.2d 1240, 1243-414 (1983) (citing Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914); State ex. rel. Murphy v. Brown, 83 Wash. 100, 105-06, 145 P. 69, 71 (1914); Dillon v. O'Brien, 20 L.R. Ir. 200, 316-17 (Ex. D. 1887); Leigh v. Cole, 6 Cox Crim. L. Cas. 329, 332 (Oxford......

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