State v. Crouch
| Decision Date | 07 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 43718,43718 |
| Citation | 192 Kan. 602,389 P.2d 824 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Carroll CROUCH, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Only unreasonable searches and seizures come within the prohibition of the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution and section 15 of the Bill of Rights of the state constitution.
2. The test of reasonableness of search and seizure under the federal and state constitutions cannot be stated in rigid and absolute terms but each case must be decided on its own facts.
3. Search and seizure without a search warrant incidental to lawful arrest is permitted by the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution and section 15 of the Bill of Rights of the state constitution.
4. A search incident to arrest, which is otherwise reasonable, is not automatically rendered invalid by fact that a dwelling place, as contrasted to a business premises, is subject to search.
5. Where defendant was in exclusive possession of a three-room apartment, search incident to arrest could validly extend beyond room in which he was arrested.
6. Where defendant was arrested in the living room of his three-room apartment under a warrant charging him with obtaining narcotics by forged prescriptions and officers searched his entire apartment to discover instrumentalities they thought might be used in committing the offense charged constituted a reasonable search, although officers did not have search warrant, and the admission of the narcotics discovered in the closet as evidence in a prosecution for possession of narcotics in violation of state statutes was neither a violation of search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution nor a violation of section 15 of the Bill of Rights of the state constitution.
Kermit M. Beal, Lawrence, for appellant.
Ralph M. King, Jr., County Atty., for appellee, and William M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Arthur Palmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Daniel A. Young, Asst. County Atty., on the brief.
The defendant was tried and convicted for the offense of possession of a narcotic drug, namely cannabis, commonly called marihuana, in violation of G.S.1961 Supp. 65-2502, and sentenced to the penitentiary.
At the trial defendant moved to suppress the evidence that served as a basis for his conviction on the ground it had been obtained by means of an unlawful search and seizure contrary to the provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution and section 15 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Kansas. Defendant assigns as error the trial court's overruling of his motion to suppress the evidence. The pertinent facts follow.
Shortly after midnight October 6, 1962, the sheriff, in company with other law enforcement officers carrying a warrant issued out of Wyandotte county for the arrest of the defendant charging him with obtaining narcotics by forged prescriptions, went to the home of the defendant in Lawrence. The officers rapped on defendant's door and advised him they were officers and had a warrant for his arrest. The officers were admitted. Defendant was placed under arrest pursuant to the warrant issued out of Wyandotte county and then was advised by the officers they would make a search of his apartment which consisted of a living room, kitchen, bathroom and small closet. The defendant consented and advised the officers to go ahead. The officers then made a search of the apartment and in a closet adjoining the front room found a glass jar containing what subsequent tests proved to be cannabis.
In Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399, and adopted by this court in State v. Blood, 190 Kan. 812, 821, 378 P.2d 548, the court emphasized it is only unreasonable searches and seizures which come within the constitutional prohibition; that the test of reasonableness cannot be stated in rigid and absolute terms; and that each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. In the Harris case a warrant had been issued for the petitioner's arrest charging violation of the Mail Fraud Statute and the National Stolen Property Act. Upon arrival at his apartment petitioner was arrested in the living room, and without a search warrant an intensive search followed for two canceled checks and other means by which the crimes charged might have been committed. In the course of this search a sealed envelope marked 'personal papers' of the accused was found and torn open. It contained several draft cards which were property of the United States, and the possession of which was a federal offense. Thus, an arrest for one felony which was followed by a search, produced evidence of another felony. It was held the evidence found in the search was not obtained in violation of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor did its use violate the privilege of the accused against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.
The Harris case further stated the Fourth Amendment has never been held to require that every valid search and seizure be effected under the authority of a search warrant. Search and seizure incident to lawful arrest is a practice of ancient origin and has long been an integral part of the law-enforcement procedures of the United States and of the individual states.
It was also held a search incident to an arrest may, under appropriate circumstances, extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises under his immediate control.
It was further stated in the Harris case (331 U.S. p. 151, 67 S.Ct. p. 1101, 91 L.Ed. 1399), in quoting from Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145:
"The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search persons lawfully arrested while committing crime and to search the place where the arrest is made in order to find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed, as well as weapons and other things to effect an escape from custody is not to be doubted.' It is equally clear that a search incident to arrest, which is otherwise reasonable, is not automatically rendered invalid by the fact that a dwelling place, as contrasted to a business premises, is subjected to search.'
In the instant case the defendant does not question the validity of his arrest on the warrant issued out of Wyandotte county at the time in question, nor that the search, with defendant's consent, for the fruits of the crime revealed the unlawful possession of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomas
...2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 [1971]) (recognizing that plain view alone does not justify warrantless seizure of evidence); State v. Crouch, 192 Kan. 602, 606, 389 P.2d 824 (1964) (officers could seize government property, illegally possessed by defendant in plain view, upon authorized entry of prem......
-
State v. Burton
...at 319, 613 P.2d 1359. The trial court has broad discretion in controlling both voir dire and closing arguments. See State v. Crouch, 192 Kan. 602, 606, 389 P.2d 824 (1964); Skelly Oil Co. v. Urban Renewal Agency, 211 Kan. 804, 809, 508 P.2d 954 (1973). The trial court did not abuse its dis......
-
State v. Mitchell, 55128
...broad discretion to control examination and "reviewing courts will not interfere unless discretion has been abused." State v. Crouch, 192 Kan. 602, 606, 389 P.2d 824 (1964). In another case, outside of Kansas but quite similar to the instant case, the court held: "A trial judge does not bec......
-
State v. Boyle, 46421
...cannot be stated in rigid or absolute terms, and that each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. (State v. Crouch, 192 Kan. 602, 604, 389 P.2d 824.) Here the need to protect life or avoid serious injury is justification for what might otherwise have been illegal absent a......