State v. Hughlett

• Decision Date: 19 April 1923
• Docket Number: 17641.
• Citation: 214 P. 841,124 Wash. 366
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. HUGHLETT et al.

214 P. 841

124 Wash. 366

STATE v. HUGHLETT et al.

No. 17641.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 19, 1923

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; W. P. Brown, Judge.

John Hughlett and Ed Turner were convicted of bootlegging, and appeal. Affirmed.

S. M Bruce, of Bellingham, for appellants.

Lindsay L. Thompson, of Olympia, and Loomis Baldrey, E. D. Kenyon and Edwin Gruber, all of Bellingham, for the State.

BRIDGES J.

Defendants were charged with bootlegging and were found guilty by a jury. They have appealed from the judgment of sentence.

During the trial certain whisky which had been taken at the time of the arrest was received in evidence, over the objections of the appellants. The sheriff, as a witness for the state, had previously testified that he did not have any warrant for the arrest of the appellants, nor did he have any search warrant.

It is necessary to recite some of the facts. For some time before the arrest, as hereinafter stated, the sheriff and his deputies had suspected that the appellants were engaged in bootlegging. They had been watching them, and had followed one or both of them on other occasions and had observed their conduct and actions. Reports had come to the sheriff's office that they were engaged in the liquor traffic. On the day of the arrest the appellants were seen by the sheriff's force to be driving an automobile. Their actions were suspicious and mysterious. They stopped at a house, and a man brought therefrom a suit case, which was put in the automobile. The appellants then drove to the outskirts of the city of Bellingham. Meanwhile the peace officers were following them. As the appellants were returning to the city they were stopped by the sheriff's force and put under arrest, a deputy was put in the appellants' car, and they were required to, and did, drive to the city jail. There the appellants were put in jail, and at once thereafter the sheriff's men took from the appellants' automobile a suit case and one sack, both well filled with bottles of whisky.

It is contended, in the first place, that the officers had no authority to take the whisky, because they had no authority to make the arrests without a warrant for that purpose. Circumstances, however, may arise where it is not only within the power of the police officers, but it is their duty, to make arrests without any warrant therefor. In misdemeanor cases the officer may not arrest without a warrant therefor, except where the crime is being committed in his presence, or where he had actual knowledge that the person about to be arrested committed the crime. But in cases amounting to a felony if the officer believe, and have good reason to believe, that a person has committed, or is about to commit, or is in the act of committing, the crime, then he may arrest without a warrant. But the arresting officer must not only have a real belief of the guilt of the person about to be arrested, but such belief must be based upon reasonable grounds. Proper cause for arrest has often been defined to be a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty. An officer may not arrest simply because he has some fleeting idea that one may be about to commit a felony, but he must have a reasonable ground for his belief. 2 R. C. L. 446-450; 5 C.J. 398 et seq., 416 et seq.; State v. Symes, 20 Wash. 484, 55 P. 626. We do not consider it necessary to recite all the facts upon which the sheriff based his belief that the appellants were committing a felony; suffice it to say that the facts bring this case easily within the rule of the authorities. We therefore hold that the appellants were not unlawfully arrested.

But it is contended that, even if the appellants were lawfully arrested, the officers had no right to search and take from them any of their property whatsoever, except such as was upon their persons, and that since the liquor in question was not on their persons, but was in the automobile which they were driving, the seizure was unlawful. This contention of appellants is mostly based upon some expressions found in the case of State v. Gibbons, 118 Wash. 171, 203 P. 390. The facts in that case were that the defendant drove his automobile from Spokane to Ritzville, and while the car was stopped in the streets of the latter place, the sheriff arrested him while he was still in the car, and charged him with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, which, of course, is a misdemeanor. At the time of the arrest, intoxicating liquor was found in the automobile and taken by the officers. The sheriff had no particular reason to suspect that the defendant was guilty of any offense; did not know him, had not had him under surveillance, and had no reasonable basis upon which to form an opinion that the defendant was committing any crime. We held that the arrest was unlawful, and for that reason the seizure of the intoxicating liquor was unlawful. In making our...