State v. Edmonds, No. 55625
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 462 S.W.2d 782 |
| Decision Date | 08 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 55625 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alvin Holt EDMONDS, Appellant |
Page 782
v.
Alvin Holt EDMONDS, Appellant.
Page 783
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Charles A. Blackmar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Samuel T. Vandover, Public Defender, Clayton, for appellant.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Alvin Holt Edmonds was found guilty by a jury of possessing burglary tools in violation of § 560.115 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., and pursuant to the Second Offender Act was sentenced by the court to confinement by the Department of Corrections for a term of ten years.
Appellant's first point is that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence because, according to appellant, there was no probable cause for his arrest.
A few minutes before four o'clock of the morning of March 7, 1967, Police Officer David M. Higgins stopped an automobile being operated by appellant after the officer noticed that the license plate was not lighted and that what appeared to be a television set was in the opened trunk of the automobile. When appellant was asked to produce his operator's license he delayed doing so. He stated to the officer that he was a humane officer and that he was on his way to pick up some dogs, and that he had dog cages in his automobile for that purpose. The officer then walked to the automobile and saw a television set on the rear seat and he confirmed that the object in the open trunk was also a television set. There were no dog cages in the automobile. Appellant then told the officer that the
Page 784
television sets belonged to a passenger in the automobile, but when the passenger was asked about them he said they belonged to appellant. Both men were then placed under arrest for suspicion of burglary and stealing, and given the 'Miranda' warnings. In the meantime Officer Loyd arrived in another police automobile, and appellant was placed in that automobile. Appellant then told the officers that the automobile he had been driving was 'hot,' which indicated to the officers that it had been stolen. It was after this information was received that the officers searched the automobile and found in the back seat a brief case which contained a pry bar, bolt cutter, three screwdrivers, flashlights, gloves, and a wide roll of adhesive tape. Appellant told the officers that he had purchased the various items found in the brief case in St. Louis. These items were the subject of appellant's motion to suppress.Appellant's contention is without merit for two reasons.
First. Appellant admitted the automobile was 'hot,' that is, that it was stolen and that he had no right to possession. He is not entitled to raise the issue of an illegal search of the automobile of someone else. State v. Booker, Mo., 454 S.W.2d 927; State v. Taylor, Mo., 429 S.W.2d 254. He was not charged with an offense of which the claim of the right of possession of the automobile proved or tended to establish the offense charged, so the rule announced in Glisson v. United States, 5 Cir., 406 F.2d 423 is not applicable.
Second. This case is governed by the rule announced in Chambers v. Maroney, 399...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tanner
...572 (1972); Slyter v. State, 246 Miss. 402, 149 So.2d 489 (1963); Harper v. State, 84 Nev. 233, 440 P.2d 893 (1968); State v. Edmonds, 462 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.1971). Cf. Cotton v. United States, 371 F.2d 385 (9th Cir.1967); Simpson v. United States, 346 F.2d 291 (10th Cir.1965) (which, however, ......
-
Duncan v. State, No. 967
...1961); Slyter v. State, 246 Miss. 402, 149 So.2d 489 (1963); Harper v. State, 84 Nev. 233, 440 P.2d 893 (1968); State v. Edmonds, 462 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.1971); Meade v. Cox, 310 F.Supp. 233 (W.D.Va., 1970). But see Cotton v. United States, 371 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1967). Even more compelling than......
-
Palmer v. State, 250
...499 (1961); Slyter v. State, 246 Miss. 402, 149 So.2d 489 (1963); Harper v. State, 84 Nev. 233, 440 P.2d 893 (1968); State v. Edmonds, 462 S.W.2d 782 (Missouri, 1971); Meade v. Cox, 310 F.Supp. 233 (W.D.Virginia, 1970). Even more compelling than the precedents from our sister jurisdictions,......
-
People v. Trusty, No. 26142
...P.2d 499; Palmer v. State, 14 Md.App. 159, 286 A.2d 572; Slyter v. State, 246 Miss. 402, 149 So.2d 489, 150 So.2d 528; State v. Edmonds, 462 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.); Harper v. State, 84 Nev. 233, 440 P.2d 893. See generally, 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence §§ 418 and 421; 48 A.L.R.3d 559. We point out that ......
-
State v. Tanner
...572 (1972); Slyter v. State, 246 Miss. 402, 149 So.2d 489 (1963); Harper v. State, 84 Nev. 233, 440 P.2d 893 (1968); State v. Edmonds, 462 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.1971). Cf. Cotton v. United States, 371 F.2d 385 (9th Cir.1967); Simpson v. United States, 346 F.2d 291 (10th Cir.1965) (which, however, ......
-
Duncan v. State, No. 967
...1961); Slyter v. State, 246 Miss. 402, 149 So.2d 489 (1963); Harper v. State, 84 Nev. 233, 440 P.2d 893 (1968); State v. Edmonds, 462 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.1971); Meade v. Cox, 310 F.Supp. 233 (W.D.Va., 1970). But see Cotton v. United States, 371 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1967). Even more compelling than......
-
Palmer v. State, 250
...499 (1961); Slyter v. State, 246 Miss. 402, 149 So.2d 489 (1963); Harper v. State, 84 Nev. 233, 440 P.2d 893 (1968); State v. Edmonds, 462 S.W.2d 782 (Missouri, 1971); Meade v. Cox, 310 F.Supp. 233 (W.D.Virginia, 1970). Even more compelling than the precedents from our sister jurisdictions,......
-
People v. Trusty, No. 26142
...P.2d 499; Palmer v. State, 14 Md.App. 159, 286 A.2d 572; Slyter v. State, 246 Miss. 402, 149 So.2d 489, 150 So.2d 528; State v. Edmonds, 462 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.); Harper v. State, 84 Nev. 233, 440 P.2d 893. See generally, 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence §§ 418 and 421; 48 A.L.R.3d 559. We point out that ......