State v. Helms
| Decision Date | 09 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 40263,40263 |
| Citation | 77 Wn.2d 89,459 P.2d 392 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Jerry Brown HELMS, Charles James Kovacik, Defendants, Claude Fulton Jackson, Appellant. |
William Merchant Pease, Seattle, for appellant.
Charles O'Carroll, King County Pros. Atty., Robert A. Wacker, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
Claude Fulton Jackson appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of the crime of grand larceny.
The facts surrounding his arrest were these: About 1:45 a.m., November 1, 1967, he was a passenger in an unlighted Buick automobile being driven along a Seattle street. Police officers observed the vehicle, sounded a siren, and the Buick stopped in the middle lane of the street's three northbound lanes. One of the officers left the police car and approached the Buick. As he did so, the Buick suddenly 'took off at a high rate of speed,' going approximately 45 to 50 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour speed zone. The car traveled a distance of about six blocks before it was again stopped.
The driver of the Buick was asked to produce his motor vehicle operator's license and a registration certificate for the automobile. He was unable to produce either of them. When asked to identify himself in some other manner, he removed from the glove compartment an envelope with the name 'Edgar S. Bray' written on it and handed it to the officer. When asked to state his middle name, the driver said that he was unable to do so. Still later he said 'that the couldn't remember who he was and (that he) forgot his own name.' He was later identified as Jerry Brown Helms.
As the police officers questioned defendant and his two companions in the Buick, they observed two cases of Prestone antifreeze in the car, one on the front seat and the other on the rear seat. They also saw an automobile jack on the rear floor of the car. Officer Zampardo said that 'I looked on the (automobile) floor and it looked like two checks, and as I looked at the pieces of paper that appeared to be checks I noticed that it said, 'Hal's Waterfront Service, 1524 Alaskan Way.''
The officer thereupon radioed that information to police headquarters. Other officers checked Hal's Waterfront Service, a gasoline service station, found that one of its windows had been broken, and determined that someone had illegally entered the premises. When that information was relayed back to Officer Zampardo, the three occupants of the Buick were placed under arrest.
Evidence was then taken from the Buick. It consisted of the antifreeze, automobile jack, and other articles found under a cloth on the back seat of the car. The covered articles could not be seen from outside the automobile, but were found when it was thoroughly searched. They were an R. C. Allen cash register, a Smith-Corona adding machine, and an automobile lubricating gun, each later identified by the owner of Hal's Waterfront Service as property taken from his station some time after it was closed on the night before the arrest. The admission of those items into evidence against defendant gives rise to the principal assignments of error raised on this appeal.
It is first said that the articles taken from the automobile should not have been admitted into evidence because they were obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure. Defendant says that the search of the car was not predicated upon sufficient legal circumstances and that his constitutional right to freedom from an unreasonable search and seizure was therefore violated. He cites Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); and Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964) in support of his proposition. We find them not applicable.
The event which gave rise to the discovery of the articles in the Buick automobile was the commission of a misdemeanor by the driver of that car in the presence of the arresting officers. It was undenied that the Buick was being operated without lights during the hours of darkness.
The antifreeze, the automobile jack and the bank deposit slips were seen within the automobile by the arresting officers as they questioned the defendant and his companions who were seated in the car. Since those articles were within plain sight of the officers and were of possible evidentiary value, they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Glasper
...We disagree. A police officer is not required to ignore items of possible evidentiary value which are in plain sight. State v. Helms, 77 Wash.2d 89, 459 P.2d 392 (1969); State v. Regan, 76 Wash.2d 331, 457 P.2d 1016 (1969); Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 106......
-
State v. Sinclair
...U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); State v. Helms, 77 Wash.2d 89, 459 P.2d 392 (1969); State v. Day, 7 Wash.App. 965, 503 P.2d 1098 (1972); State v. Larsen, 4 Wash.App. 356, 481 P.2d 462 (1971). This rule is ......
-
State v. Withers
...have been admitted into evidence, and where these admitted items are clearly linked to the possession of the accused. State v. Helms,77 Wash.2d 89, 459 P.2d 392 (1969). There was sufficient identification of the exhibits to sustain the trial court's order admitting them into evidence. The q......
-
State v. McIntyre, 404--I
...and inferential case support for this view. Creighton v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 115, 406 F.2d 651 (1968); State v. Helms, 77 Wash.Dec.2d 86, 459 P.2d 392 (1969); See Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 324, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); People v. Marshall, 69 Cal.2d 51, 69 Ca......