State v. Cyr
| Decision Date | 24 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 31872,31872 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. CYR. |
Futter, Burson & Freyd, Pasco, for appellant.
Murray E. Taggart, Herbert H. Freise, Vaughn Hubbard, Walla Walla, for respondent.
On the early morning of May 12, 1951, Louis Cyr was discovered inside a tavern in Burbank, Walla Walla county, Washington. This was several hours after the tavern had been closed for the night. After being identified, he was permitted to leave. Later in the morning it was found that two gallons of wine and a cigar box containing small change were missing from the tavern. The sheriff's office made an investigation, after which Cyr was arrested while he was in a Wallula, Washington, restaurant. The officers then went outside and, without a search warrant, examined Cyr's automobile. They found a half-filled jug of wine of the same brand as that taken from the tavern. The missing cigar box and change was not found.
Cyr was thereupon brought to trial on a charge of burglary in the second degree. At the trial, he offered testimony to the effect that, while driving by the tavern, he had seen some one standing outside the building. He returned to investigate, heard footsteps, saw the back door open, and entered the tavern. It was then that he was discovered by employees of the tavern owner. Defendant denied taking the wine or box of change, and testified that the wine which was discovered in his automobile had been purchased at Grandview or Sunnyside the week before.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Judgment was entered accordingly, and defendant appeals.
Appellant first assigns as error the admission in evidence, over his objection, of the half-filled wine jug which had been found in his automobile. Appellant asserts that this evidence was obtained as a result of an unreasonable search following a lawful arrest, in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and §§ 7 and 9, of art. I, of the constitution of this state, and that this evidence should therefore have been suppressed.
In Federal prosecutions, the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution bars the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652. But neither the Fourth nor Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution requires state courts to follow the rule of the Weeks case. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782. The assignment of error in question, therefore, does not present a Federal Constitutional question.
The counterpart in our state constitutional of the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution is art. I, § 7, reading as follows: 'No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.' State v. Miles, 29 Wash.2d 921, 926, 190 P.2d 740. With respect to the entering and search of private dwelling houses or places of residence, this constitutional provision is implemented by statute. RCW 10.79.040, Rem.Rev.Stat. §§ 2240-1, 2240-2. It is the rule in this state that the prosecuting authority may not use, for its own profit, evidence that it has obtained in violation of these provisions. State v. Gunkel, 188 Wash. 528, 534, 63 P.2d 376; Tacoma v. Houston, 27 Wash.2d 215, 177 P.2d 886.
The constitutional requirement that searches and seizures be made only pursuant to 'authority of law' is complied with where such search and seizure is made incident to a lawful arrest. Thus it is the general rule that, where a person is legally arrested, the arresting officer has a right to search such person and take from his possession money or goods which the officer reasonably believes to be connected with the supposed crime, and discoveries made in this lawful search may be shown in evidence at the trial. Olympia v. Culp, 136 Wash. 374, 240 P. 360; State v. Rousseau, Wash. 241 P.2d 447; 74 A.L.R. 1387, 1388, annotation.
In the application of this rule, however, arresting officers are not confined to a search of the person. They may, for example, search his luggage or the automobile in which he is sitting. State v. Hughlett, 124 Wash. 366, 214 P. 841. Likewise, where the accused is arrested in his home, or place of residence, a search of the home or place of residence may at that time be lawfully made for evidence of his guilt. State v. Evans, 145 Wash. 4, 13, 258 P. 845. Where the accused is on his way to his hotel room at the time of his arrest, his room may be searched while he is being held in custody at the police station. State v. Evans, supra. Where one is arrested after leaving his garage which is located in close proximity to his place of residence, the garage may be searched and seized articles used in evidence. State v. Estes, 151 Wash. 51, 274 P. 1053.
There are no decisions of this court dealing specifically with the right, incident to a lawful arrest, to search an automobile owned but not then occupied by the accused. However, there are a number of decisions from other jurisdictions bearing upon this point. In Woods v. State, 37 Okl.Cr. 377, 258 P. 816, where the defendant was arrested within a city for being drunk, a search thereafter made of his wagon, which he had left standing in the road a mile outside the city limits, was upheld, and evidence seized as a result of such search was held to be admissible. The same result was reached in Gambill v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 281, 283 P. 262, where, after finding the defendant intoxicated under a bridge and arresting him, officers searched his automobile standing on a highway near the bridge.
In State v. One Buick Automobile, 120 Or. 640, 253 P. 366, where the defendant was arrested in his apartment, a search of his automobile which was parked in the apartment house garage, was upheld. In People v. Garrett, 232 Mich. 366, 205 N.W. 95, police officers, after arresting the defendants for intoxication and taking them to jail, found an automobile key among the effects of one. The officers took the key and went several blocks distant to the parking place of the car and made a search. The evidence seized during this search was held to be admissible.
In the instant case, appellant had driven to the neighboring town of Wallula several hours after he had been discovered in the tavern. He parked his automobile and went to a restaurant, where he was lawfully arrested a short time later. The exact distance between the parked car and the restaurant is not disclosed in the record. We can, however, take judicial notice of the fact that Wallula is not a large community. It is therefore apparent that the vehicle was parked reasonably close to the restaurant where the arrest was made. Having regard to the nature of the crime charged, the officer making the arrest had good reason to believe that evidence bearing upon the offense might be found in the automobile.
These facts would seem to bring this case within the rule sanctioned in the above-cited cases from this and other jurisdictions. They also satisfy the test laid down in State v. Much, 156 Wash. 403, 411, 287 P. 57, 60, where we said:
'It is only unreasonable searches and seizures, without probable cause, that are forbidden.'
We therefore conclude that the automobile in question was in such reasonably close proximity to the place of arrest, and there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Parker
...I, section 7, a lawful custodial arrest is a constitutionally required prerequisite to any search incident to arrest. State v. Cyr, 40 Wash.2d 840, 843, 246 P.2d 480 (1952),overruled on other grounds by State v. Ringer, 100 Wash.2d 686, 674 P.2d 1240 (1983). It is the fact of arrest itself ......
-
Elkins v. United States
...Royce, 38 Wash. 111, 80 P. 268 (admissible). Pre-Wolf: State v. Gibbons, 118 Wash. 171, 203 P. 390 excludable). Post-Wolf: State v. Cyr, 40 Wash.2d 840, 246 P.2d 480 WEST VIRGINIA Pre-Weeks: State v. Edwards, 51 W.Va. 220, 41 S.E. 429, 59 L.R.A. 465 admissible). Pre-Wolf: State v. Wills, 91......
-
State v. White
...1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 84 A.L.R.2d 933 (1961), which first made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states. See State v. Cyr, 40 Wash.2d 840, 842, 246 P.2d 480 (1952); State v. Miles, 29 Wash.2d 921, 926, 190 P.2d 740 (1948); State v. Gunkel, 188 Wash. 528, 534-35, 63 P.2d 376 (1936); St......
-
State v. Groom, 63951-5
...house or place of residence," RCW 10.79.040 implements article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. State v. Cyr, 40 Wash.2d 840, 842, 246 P.2d 480 (1952), overruled on other grounds in State v. Ringer, 100 Wash.2d 686, 674 P.2d 1240 (1983); see also State v. Carpenter, 63 Was......
-
Arrested Development: Arizona v. Gant and Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution
...165, 167 (1943), upholding the search of a home incident to the arrest of a non-present arrestee; State v. Cyr, 40 Wash. 2d 840, 844-45, 246 P.2d 480, 484 (1952), allowing the search of a vehicle incident to arrest when it was parked reasonably close to the scene of the arrest, and the offi......