State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 18 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 2,2 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Ronald Lee HILL, Appellant. 177. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Edgar M. Read, Tucson, for appellant.
Defendant-appellant, Ronald Hill, was informed against for the crimes of burglary and petit theft. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts, and judgment was entered thereon. Imposition of defendant's sentence for Count One was suspended for two years, and on Count Two, for six months, the two to run concurrently. Defendant appeals the judgments of conviction.
The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether there was an unreasonable search and seizure of which defendant can complain.
Construing the facts in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, they are as follows. A Mr. Nowell testified that, while enroute to lunch on November 1, 1967, he drove near Tyndall Avenue and Drachman Street in Tucson, where he noticed three Negro males. Two were suspiciously loitering around a parked Stingray Corvette and a third, the defendant, was inside and ducked down as Nowell drove by. Since he knew the car did not belong to them, when he rounded the corner and saw a police officer he reported what he had seen. Officer Sherwood testified he immediately rounded the corner and saw three Negro males, including defendant, proceeding on foot along the street. One, Pro Williams, had something concealed under his shirt and, after first denying its existence, produced a Munz stereo tape unit which subsequently was shown to have been taken from the Corvette belonging to James Cabereno without his consent. All three were then immediately advised of their rights, questioned and released. Defendant was not the one carrying the tape, but did interject into the conversation that he had found the unit. The next day defendant was arrested at his residence.
Defendant maintains that he never said he had found the tape unit, but that Pro Williams had found it. He denies having had anything to do with a Corvette automobile.
Defendant breaks down his argument into four separate questions:
1. Was there a 'search' or was the object in plain view?
2. Was the search incident to an arrest?
3. Was the search illegal?
4. Does the defendant have standing to challenge the search and seizure?
We believe initially that there was a search within the ambit of the Fourth Amendment. We do not believe that carrying something under one's shirt is any different than carrying a parcel or other wrapped item. The obvious intent is to conceal the identity of the item, and the Fourth Amendment is designed to protect such concealment. Here, it is especially true as defendant initially refused to reveal the item.
We also believe defendant has the requisite standing to challenge this search. The general rule is that only those whose rights have been infringed by a search may complain. 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 52. Courts have held that a defendant who was convicted on evidence retrieved from a co-defendant or partner in crime may be as equally aggrieved as his co-defendant. Here it is clear the search was directed at all three young men and it was only circumstance that put the tape in one's possession rather than the others'. We believe defendant has standing. Wattenberg v. United States, 388 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1968); Plazola v. United States, 291 F.2d 56 (9th Cir. 1961); Hair v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 153, 289 P.2d 894 (1961); United States ex rel. Coffey v. Fay, 344 F.2d 625 (2d Cir. 1965) (); People v. Welsh, 4 Mich.App. 395, 144 N.W.2d 806 (1966) (); United States v. Romano, 241 F.Supp. 933 (S.D. Maine 1965) (); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948).
We also believe that the search in question was legal and fell within the traditional framework of a search incident to an arrest. First, we point out that the inquiry of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vaughn
...the Fourth Amendment can be assisted by determining whether probable cause to support an arrest existed at the time. State v. Hill, 10 Ariz.App. 599, 461 P.2d 168 (1969). The officers pulled defendant's car over to the side of the road by means of a flashing red light. Officer Madaras testi......
-
State v. Platt, 2
...his neighbor's house and had no possessory interest in it. See State v. Vassar, 7 Ariz.App. 344, 439 P.2d 507 (1968); State v. Hill, 10 Ariz.App. 599, 461 P.2d 168 (1969) and see also Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 Equally devoid of merit is appellant's "reaso......
-
State v. Ramos
...heroin in the possession of defendant, and defendant admitted he was on his way out of town. We cite our recent case of State v. Hill, 10 Ariz.App. 599, 461 P.2d 168 (Filed November 18, 1969), in which we held a similar eyewitness report of an actual crime gave the officer probable cause to......
-
State v. Muegge
...a demand to disclose or produce concealed objects is treated as a search for purposes of constitutional analysis. State v. Hill, 10 Ariz.App. 599, 461 P.2d 168 (1969); M.J. v. State, 399 So.2d 996 (Fla. App.1981); People v. Williams, 69 Misc.2d 1038, 332 N.Y.S.2d 693 (1970). A warrantless s......