State v. Hall

• Decision Date: 22 December 1925
• Docket Number: 26569
• Citation: 278 S.W. 1028
• Parties: STATE v. HALL
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

278 S.W. 1028

STATE v. HALL

No. 26569

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

December 22, 1925

W. L Hiett, of Houston, for appellant.

Robert W. Otto, Atty. Gen., and James A. Potter, Sp. Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

OPINION

HIGBEE, C.

The defendant was charged with unlawfully transporting moonshine, hootch, and corn whisky, tried to a jury, found guilty as charged in the information, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of five months. After motions for new trial and in arrest were overruled, the defendant appealed.

Prior to the trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the sheriff, Harry Kelly, by reason of a search of the defendant's automobile at Houston in Texas county, on July -- , 1924, without a search warrant, and that said search was violative of section 11, article 2, of the Constitution of Missouri, and of the provisions of section 25, Laws 1923, p. 244.

The evidence on the hearing of this motion is that Mr. Kelly, the sheriff, saw the defendant in his automobile, and smelled whisky on his breath. He told the defendant he suspected him of dealing in whisky, and that he wished to search the car. The defendant assented. The car was driven into a garage, and, before a search was made, the defendant told Mr. Kelly he had whisky in the tool box, and asked Mr. Kelly if he wanted the key. The sheriff found in the car two quart fruit jars containing a pint and a half or more of moonshine, which he took into his possession, and it was offered in evidence at the hearing of the motion and also at the trial. The sheriff had no warrant authorizing the search. The defendant testified he did not assent to the search. The court overruled the motion. The case went to trial on substantially the evidence offered at the hearing of the motion, resulting in a verdict of guilty as above stated.

The cases bearing on the right to search an automobile or other conveyance without a warrant are reviewed by Judge White in State v. Owens, 302 Mo. 348, 368, 259 S.W. 100, 105 (32 A. L. R. 383), where the learned judge said:

'We have reviewed the automobile cases to show they are not in point: in each of such cases the search was held to be reasonable, because the delay in obtaining a search warrant would give time to the rapidly moving vehicles to be beyond the reach of the officers or to have disburdened itself of its load. * * * '

In Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149, 45 S.C. 280, 283, 69 L.Ed. 543, Chief Justice Taft, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

'On reason and authority the true rule is that if the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon probable cause, that is, upon a belief, reasonably arising out of the circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, the search and seizure are valid. The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens.'

After reviewing numerous decisions, the learned court, on page 285 (267 U.S. 153) further said:

'We have made a somewhat extended reference to these statutes to show that the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house, or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.'

See also, State v. Zugras, 306 Mo. 492, 267...