State v. Giles
| Decision Date | 19 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 435,435 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Norman GILES. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
W. H. Yarborough, Jr., Thomas W. Ruffin, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., G. A. Jones, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant assigns as error the admission of the officers' testimony upon the premise that the evidence of the defendant's possession and transportation of nontax-paid liquor was inadmissible. The defendant insists that the officers made an illegal and unlawful search of his car without a search warrant.
It is provided in G.S. § 15-27 that, '* * no facts discovered or evidence obtained without a legal search warrant in the course of any search, made under conditions requiring the issuance of a search warrant, shall be competent as evidence in the trial of any action.'
It is also provided in G.S. § 18-6 that no search warrant is required '* * * where the officer sees or has absolute personal knowledge that there is intoxicating liquor in such vehicle or baggage.'
The defendant in operating his automobile in excess of 55 miles an hour in a 35 mile zone on the public streets in the City of Raleigh, committed a misdemeanor in the presence of the Raleigh Police Officers and they had a right to pursue him and arrest him without a warrant. Consequently, after the defendant was taken into custody, it was the duty of the officers to return to defendant's car and to see that it was taken care of and not abandoned. If, upon approaching the automobile, the officers detected the smell of liquor or other intoxicating beverages therein, it was their duty to take possession of the car and seize the liquor without first obtaining a search warrant. State v. Ferguson, 238 N.C. 656, 78 S.E.2d 911.
In the case of State v. Harper, 236 N.C. 371, 72 S.E.2d 871, 872, this Court said:
It is said in 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 68, subsection (a), page 845, et seq.: 'Where an officer is where he has a right to be and becomes a witness to an offense which necessitates his acting as such officer, he may make the incidental search and seizure, but where he observes the offense after he has made an unlawful entry a subsequent search and seizure without a warrant may be illegal.' State v. Moore, 240 N.C. 749, 83 S.E.2d 912; In re...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCloud
...such as burglary tools, does not require a warrant when its presence is fully disclosed without necessity of search. State v. Giles, 254 N.C. 499, 119 S.E.2d 394; State v. Bell, supra; Goodwin v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 347 F.2d 793; United States v. Owens, 7 Cir., 346 F.2d 329; ......
-
State v. Colson
...is no need of a search, and where the contraband subject matter is fully disclosed and open to the eye and hand.' See State v. Giles, 254 N.C. 499, 119 S.E.2d 394; State v. Coffey, 255 N.C. 293, 121 S.E.2d 736; and State v. Kinley, 270 N.C. 296, 154 S.E.2d Applying these principles to the e......
-
State v. Smith
...780 (1969); State v. Kinley, 270 N.C. 296, 154 S.E.2d 95 (1967); State v. Coffey, 255 N.C. 293, 121 S.E.2d 736 (1961); State v. Giles, 254 N.C. 499, 119 S.E.2d 394 (1961). The 'plain view' exception to the search warrant requirement was applied in a factual context strikingly similar to the......
-
State v. Harvey
...open to the eye and the hand. State v. Virgil, 276 N.C. 217, 172 S.E.2d 28; State v. Colson, 274 N.C. 295, 163 S.E.2d 376; State v. Giles, 254 N.C. 499, 119 S.E.2d 394. Deputy Sheriff Respass 'I read the warrant to Mr. Jesse Harvey and told him what it was for and when he came out of the do......