State v. Gibeson, WD
| Decision Date | 02 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 614 S.W.2d 14 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John Lee GIBESON, Appellant. 31346. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Byron Neal Fox and Gerald H. Rosen, Kansas City, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Darrell Panethiere, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles E. Atwell, Asst. Pros. Atty., Kansas City, for respondent.
Before PRITCHARD, P. J., and TURNAGE and CLARK, JJ.
Appellant John Lee Gibeson was convicted, after a bench trial, of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon as then proscribed by § 564.610, RSMo 1969, and was sentenced to one year in the county jail. Gibeson appeals contending as his sole point of error that the warrantless search which revealed the gun was unlawful and that the trial court erred in admitting the firearm into evidence. Affirmed.
On December 30, 1978, in the early morning hours, Officer Turnbow of the Raytown, Missouri Police Department observed Gibeson driving erratically. After Gibeson made an illegal left turn, Turnbow stopped appellant who got out of his car and was noted by Turnbow to be glassy eyed, uncoordinated and apparently intoxicated. Turnbow placed Gibeson under arrest for careless and imprudent driving and driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Because Gibeson was alone in the car, Turnbow called for a tow truck to remove the vehicle to a private storage lot, the usual practice when a driver is arrested in an intoxicated condition. Preparatory to release of the vehicle to the Perfectow Tow Company, a private contractor, Turnbow conducted a routine inventory search of the interior of the car. During the search, a .357 Magnum revolver was found beneath the front seat.
In a pre-trial proceeding, appellant moved to suppress the gun found during the inventory search. While conceding that the police officer had probable cause to stop him, Gibeson contended then and reasserts now that the search of his automobile without a warrant was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 14 of the Constitution of Missouri, and was not within exceptions which have approved warrantless searches.
Routine inventory searches without a warrant have constitutional sanction provided the initial seizure was legitimate and the search is reasonable in scope. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). The governmental interests which justify the inventory search were described in Opperman as: (1) protection of the owner's property, (2) protection of the police against claims as to stolen or lost property, and (3) protection of the police from potential danger. Where, as here, the arrestee's automobile is to be impounded and placed in storage with the inherent risk that the contents may be subject to pilferage or later claims of missing articles may be lodged, the inventory search finds its most common application and logical basis.
Judicial determination of whether a warrantless search is constitutional depends on the particular facts in each case. Where the police must assume responsibility for the safekeeping of an arrestee's automobile either because it was associated with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fortune
...70 L.Ed.2d 174 (1981); People v. Boutell, 80 Mich.App. 216, 263 N.W.2d 36 (1977), appeal denied, 402 Mich. 877 (1978); State v. Gibeson, 614 S.W.2d 14 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Roberson, 156 N.J.Super. 551, 384 A.2d 195, cert. denied 77 N.J. 487, 391 A.2d 502 (1978); Crowder v. State, 590 P.2......
-
State v. Williams
...removal and police intervention is the only viable option. State v. Peterson, supra, 583 S.W.2d at 281-282. See also State v. Gibeson, 614 S.W.2d 14, 15 (Mo.App.1981). * We also do not decide if impoundment of the car was proper, as even if it was proper, opening the trunk was not reasonabl......
-
State v. O'Connell, 68668
...Amendment is not determined according to a rigid standard, but depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. State v. Gibeson, 614 S.W.2d 14, 15 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Oberg, 602 S.W.2d 948, 950 (Mo.App.1980). We find that if indeed the inventory procedure in this case may be charac......
-
State v. Sanner, 12755
...384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).4 See State v. Valentine, 584 S.W.2d 92, 98 (Mo. banc 1979), and State v. Gibeson, 614 S.W.2d 14 (Mo.App.1981). Danderson said he did not search the Chevelle at the arrest scene because he was looking for an escaped convict that night, who ......