State v. Farley, No. 14483
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 280 S.E.2d 234,167 W.Va. 620 |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia v. Lonnie Edward FARLEY. |
| Decision Date | 14 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 14483 |
Page 234
v.
Lonnie Edward FARLEY.
Page 235
Syllabus by the Court
1. "Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. The exceptions are jealously and carefully drawn, and there must be a showing by those who seek exemption that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative." Syl. pt. 1, State v. Moore, W.Va., 272 S.E.2d 804 (1980).
2. "The burden rests on the State to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the warrantless search falls within an authorized exception." Syl. pt. 2, State v. Moore, W.Va., 272 S.E.2d 804 (1980).
3. "A warrantless seizure of property in plain view is constitutionally permissible provided three requirements are met: '(1) the police must observe the evidence in plain sight without benefit of a search (without invading one's reasonable expectation of privacy), (2) the police must have a legal right to be where they are when they make the plain sight observation and, (3) the police must have probable cause to believe that the evidence seen constitutes contraband or fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of crime.' " Syl. pt. 7, State v. Moore, W.Va., 272 S.E.2d 804 (1980), quoting, Syl. pt. 3, in part, State v. Stone, W.Va., 268 S.E.2d 50 (1980).
[167 W.Va. 621] 4. " 'An arrest cannot be justified by the fruits of an illegal search.' " Syl. pt. 8, State v. Moore, W.Va., 272 S.E.2d 804 (1980), quoting, Syl. pt. 10, in part, State v. Thomas, W.Va., 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974).
5. "Once a person under interrogation has exercised the right to remain silent guaranteed by W.Va.Const. Art. III § 5, and U.S.Const. Amend. V, the police must scrupulously honor that privilege. The failure to do so renders subsequent statements inadmissible at trial." Syl. pt. 3, State v. Rissler, W.Va., 270 S.E.2d 778 (1980).
William E. Kiger, Parkersburg, for plaintiff.
Chauncey H. Browning, Atty. Gen., Gregory W. Bailey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Charleston, for defendant.
PER CURIAM:
The defendant, Lonnie Edward Farley, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Wood County for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) and was sentenced to six months in the Wood County Correctional Center. He alleges that: (1) the marijuana admitted into evidence was the product of an illegal search and should have been suppressed; and (2) the trial court erred in admitting statements made by him at the time he was arrested and shortly thereafter.
The evidence in the case discloses that during the early morning hours of April 2, 1977, the defendant left an establishment known as "Someplace Else" in downtown Parkersburg with two of his friends who were brothers, Randy Bailey and Addison Bailey. The defendant had apparently gone to Someplace Else alone, but met his friends inside and requested a ride home. The three got into the car which was parked in a nearby parking lot; Addison [167 W.Va. 622] Bailey was driving, his brother was in the rear, and the defendant was in the passenger's seat.
The testimony indicates that the three men had been inside the vehicle for approximately one minute when a city police officer in responding to another call sighted the automobile and, not being able to determine what the three occupants were doing, approached the car. Officer Dougherty's testimony was that he walked to the passenger side of the vehicle and saw in the defendant's hand: "this aluminum foil with a green cake-like substance. The aluminum foil was open and the green cake-like substance was just lying there." The officer testified that as he shined his flashlight into the interior of the automobile, specifically on the green substance, the defendant wadded up the foil. The officer then opened the passenger door and twice demanded that he be given the substance, and the defendant refused.
Page 236
As he started to get into the car and take the foil, the defendant said, "Okay, you can have it," and handed it to him. At this point, the police officer ordered the defendant out of the car, placed him against the vehicle, and recognizing the defendant as having an outstanding traffic warrant against him, arrested him on the traffic charge.
The officer called for a back-up unit which arrived shortly thereafter. A Sergeant Holcomb then arrived on the scene and was present and heard Officer Dougherty give defendant his Miranda rights. At this point in time, the defendant advised the arresting officer that he did not want to make a statement. Immediately thereafter, Sergeant Holcomb,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oldaker, Nos. 15727
...III, Section 6 5 proscribe warrantless searches and seizures by the government, except under very limited exceptions. State v. Farley, 167 W.Va. 620, 280 S.E.2d 234 (1981); State v. Moore, 165 W.Va. 837, 272 S.E.2d 804 (1980). These constitutional provisions do not apply to searches by priv......
-
State v. Cook, No. 16183
...169 W.Va. 739, 289 S.E.2d 508 (1982); Syl. pt. 1, State v. Cain, 169 W.Va. 772, 289 S.E.2d 488 (1982); Syl. pt. 1, State v. Farley, 167 W.Va. 620, 280 S.E.2d 234 (1981). We further noted, in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Moore, supra, "The burden rests on the State to show by a preponderance......
-
State v. Woodson, No. 18321
...that privilege. The failure to do so renders subsequent statements inadmissible at trial." See also Syllabus Point 5, State v. Farley, 167 W.Va. 620, 280 S.E.2d 234 The evidence from the suppression hearing shows that after the defendant was given his Miranda warnings, he indicated on a wri......
-
State v. Buzzard, No. 22531
...seizure under this exception can occur. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); State v. Farley, 167 W.Va. 620, 623-24, 280 S.E.2d 234, 236 (1981). The fruits of the search cannot justify the arrest. State v. Moore, 165 W.Va. 837, 855-56, 272 S.E.2d 804......
-
State v. Oldaker, Nos. 15727
...III, Section 6 5 proscribe warrantless searches and seizures by the government, except under very limited exceptions. State v. Farley, 167 W.Va. 620, 280 S.E.2d 234 (1981); State v. Moore, 165 W.Va. 837, 272 S.E.2d 804 (1980). These constitutional provisions do not apply to searches by priv......
-
State v. Cook, No. 16183
...169 W.Va. 739, 289 S.E.2d 508 (1982); Syl. pt. 1, State v. Cain, 169 W.Va. 772, 289 S.E.2d 488 (1982); Syl. pt. 1, State v. Farley, 167 W.Va. 620, 280 S.E.2d 234 (1981). We further noted, in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Moore, supra, "The burden rests on the State to show by a preponderance......
-
State v. Woodson, No. 18321
...that privilege. The failure to do so renders subsequent statements inadmissible at trial." See also Syllabus Point 5, State v. Farley, 167 W.Va. 620, 280 S.E.2d 234 The evidence from the suppression hearing shows that after the defendant was given his Miranda warnings, he indicated on a wri......
-
State v. Buzzard, No. 22531
...seizure under this exception can occur. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); State v. Farley, 167 W.Va. 620, 623-24, 280 S.E.2d 234, 236 (1981). The fruits of the search cannot justify the arrest. State v. Moore, 165 W.Va. 837, 855-56, 272 S.E.2d 804......