State v. Gebhard
Decision Date | 24 September 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 39558,39558 |
Citation | 272 Minn. 336,137 N.W.2d 168 |
Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Melvin L. GEBHARD, Appellant. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
1. Evidence obtained as a result of a search of defendant's automobile and property without a warrant was admissible where defendant consented to the search.
2. The validity of a search and seizure turns upon the issue of reasonableness. That issue is ordinarily one of fact and depends upon the particular circumstances in each case.
3. Where a search is made with the consent of defendant, any claim of waiver of constitutional rights by him must be viewed with caution.
4. Under the facts recited in the opinion, the evidence sustained a finding of guilty of violation of Minn.St. 169.09,
Kempe & Murphy, West St. Paul, for guilty of violation of Minn.St. 169.09.
Robert W. Mattson, Atty. Gen., and Linus J. Hammond, Asst. Atty. Gen., Stephen L. Maxwell, City Atty., and Daniel Klas, Asst. City Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction involving an alleged violation of Minn.St. 169.09, which imposes upon the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or damage the duty to stop until he has fulfilled the requirements of law relating to the giving of information, and punishes as a misdemeanor failure to comply therewith. The action was tried to the court without a jury. Defendant's principal claim of error is that he was convicted by the use of evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure.
The offense with which defendant was charged grew out of an accident which occurred October 18, 1963, at approximately 7 p.m. when a car allegedly driven by defendant struck and killed a pedestrian. At about 10:30 on the morning of October 19, 1963, an officer of the St. Paul Police Department was engaged in making an investigation of two hit-and-run accidents which occurred the previous night. He called at defendant's home and inquired of defendant as to his knowledge of the accidents. It appears that defendant had no objection to the interview and, at the officer's request, backed his car out of the garage so that it might be examined. Defendant accompanied the policeman to police headquarters and was questioned further with reference to his knowledge of the accidents. He consented to having his car towed to the police garage. Later two officers returned to defendant's home and, with permission of defendant's wife, removed certain contents from the trash barrel located on the premises. It does not appear from the record that defendant was forcibly detained at the police station although he left with his attorney at 5 p.m. While he was there, it appears that he answered questions freely. The automobile remained at the police garage until about a week later although several demands were made for its return. Defendant admitted that he was involved in another accident on the same night but denied that he had driven the car which was involved in the fatal accident.
Prosecution for the misdemeanor was instituted by complaint filed in municipal court. None of the witnesses who testified at the trial actually identified defendant as the driver of the automobile, but several witnesses at the scene of the accident identified his automobile as similar to the one involved in the accident. The glass from the sealed beam headlight taken from defendant's automobile and trash barrel matched pieces taken at the scene of the accident. It is contended that photographs of the automobile and parts and pieces of the automobile used in evidence were illegally obtained by the state through an unlawful search and seizure. Timely motions to suppress the evidence were made and defendant's counsel duly interposed objections to the introduction of the evidence at the trial.
We must rely upon the record to determine whether the prosecuting authorities legally came into possession of the evidence used against defendant. The evidence on this point comes from the testimony of Police Officer Bernard Tacheny, who stated:
'Q. 1341 Victoria?
Officer Tacheny asked defendant if he could look at his automobile. Defendant said 'yes' and backed his car out of the garage for the officer to view. Officer Tacheny testified:
Officer Tacheny further testified:
Another officer gave the following testimony with reference to a further interview at the police department:
'He said he finished up work at the 'Mining' at about 3:30 and drove home and he was doing some refinishing of furniture and he was using a substance--varnish remover he called
Later the same day, with permission of defenda...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Clifford
...160, 176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L.Ed. 1879, 1890, rehearing denied, 338 U.S. 839, 70 S.Ct. 31, 94 L.Ed. 513.3 State v. Gebhard, 272 Minn. 336, 342, 137 N.W.2d 168, 172; State ex rel. Beltowski v. Tahash, 266 Minn. 182, 185, 123 N.W.2d 207, 209, certiorari denied, 375 U.S. 947, 84 S.Ct. 35......
-
State v. Holmes
...certiorari dismissed, 381 U.S. 907, 85 S.Ct. 1456, 14 L.Ed.2d 289; State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153, 130 N.W.2d 347; State v. Gebhard, 272 Minn. 336, 137 N.W.2d 168; 17 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § In the recent case of State ex rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. ---,141 N.W.2d 3, we pointed......