State v. Deitz
| Decision Date | 02 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | 19186. |
| Citation | 136 Wash. 228,239 P. 386 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. DEITZ. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Lindsley, Judge.
G. A Deitz was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Geo Francis Burton and L. W. Long, both of Seattle, for appellant.
Malcolm Douglas and Robert S. Macfarlane, both of Seattle, for the State.
The defendant was charged by information with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. The trial was before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment finding him guilty and imposing a fine of $100. From the judgment entered the defendant prosecutes the appeal.
The following will be a sufficient summary of the facts: On the evening of August 4 1923, at about the hour of 9:30 o'clock p. m. the appellant drove a motor vehicle referred to as a Ford bug into an amusement park at Renton Junction in King county. As he passed through the gate two deputy sheriffs who were standing nearby observed that the car had but one headlight, no tail light, and did not have the license plates required by law. After stopping the car about 200 feet from the entrance the officers engaged the defendant in conversation, with the result that he was placed under arrest for not having proper lights and license plates upon the vehicle. After the arrest took place he was placed in the custody of one of the officers. The other officer then inquired what he had in the rear of the car, and he said tools. The officer asked him for the key in order that he might open the rear compartment and make an examination. The appellant after a search of his pockets stated that he had no key. One of the officers then produced a master key which unlocked the little padlock which was upon the compartment. In the rear of the car was three pints of moonshine whisky. Thereafter the appellant was charged as above indicated. Before the trial he moved to suppress the evidence, claiming that it had been unlawfully obtained in that, the officer having made the arrest for driving without lights, the moonshine whisky obtained upon the search was not admissible in evidence. The appellant did not take the stand, and the case rests upon the testimony of the arresting officers.
The appellant's first position is that, since the appellant was not committing a breach of the peace in the presence of the officers which constituted a misdemeanor, they had no right to make the arrest without a warrant. But the rule is not so limited. Even though the misdemeanor committed in the presence of an officer be not a breach of the peace nevertheless the right to arrest exists. State v. Llewellyn, 119 Wash. 306, 205 P. 394; State v. Ditmar, 132 Wash. 501, 232 P. 321. It follows that the officers had a right to arrest the appellant for driving the Ford bug without lights and license plates required by the law, as this is a misdemeanor under the statute.
The next contention is that the appellant had not in fact been placed under arrest before the search was made. The evidence, however, shows clearly that an arrest had been made, and that the appellant was placed in the custody of one of the officers.
The last and final question is whether the officers had a right to search the car without a warrant authorizing them so to do. The principal reliance of the appellant appears to be on this question, and, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Parker
...124 Wash. 366, 214 P. 841 (1923), overruled on other grounds by State v. Ringer, 100 Wash.2d 686, 674 P.2d 1240 (1983); State v. Deitz, 136 Wash. 228, 239 P. 386 (1925), overruled on other grounds by Ringer, 100 Wash.2d 686, 674 P.2d 1240; State v. Miller, 151 Wash. 114, 275 P. 75 (1929), o......
-
State v. Snapp
...historical justification or precedent." Ringer, 100 Wash.2d at 695, 674 P.2d 1240 (addressing several cases including State v. Deitz, 136 Wash. 228, 239 P. 386 (1925), overruled by Ringer, 100 Wash.2d at 699, 674 P.2d 1240 and State v. Cyr, 40 Wash.2d 840, 246 P.2d 480 (1952), overruled by ......
-
State v. Ringer
...Hughlett this court allowed searches incident to arrest well beyond the area of immediate control of the arrestee. In State v. Deitz, 136 Wash. 228, 239 P. 386 (1925), the court upheld the search by police of the trunk of an arrestee's automobile. In Deitz defendant was arrested for not hav......
-
State v. Stroud
...put in jail. A search of their automobile then revealed a suitcase and sack filled with bottles of whiskey. Later, in State v. Deitz, 136 Wash. 228, 239 P. 386 (1925), a search of an automobile trunk was allowed incident to an arrest. The defendant was arrested for improper lights and licen......
-
Arrested Development: Arizona v. Gant and Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution
...to arrest for evidence that tends to prove the crime of arrest if the vehicle is under the control of the arrestee); State v. Deitz, 136 Wash. 228, 239 P. 386 (1925) (holding search of a vehicle incident to arrest need not be for evidence relevant to the crime of arrest); State v. Miller, 1......