State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 19 September 1962 |
| Citation | 232 Or. 118,374 P.2d 481 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. James J. JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Benhardt E. Schmidt, Portland, argued the cause and submitted briefs for appellant.
Gordon M. MacLaren, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Charles E. Raymond, Dist. Atty., Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, WARNER, PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL and GOODWIN, JJ.
James Johnson appeals from a conviction under ORS 474.020 (Uniform Narcotic Drug Act) for illegal possession of codeine.
The sole issue in the case arises out of the seizure of the evidence upon which the conviction was based. Evidence seized in violation of the state and federal constitution may not be used in a criminal prosecution. State v. Chinn, 74 Adv.Sh. 969, 373 P.2d 392. A brown bottle about ten inches high, and full of white pills, was seized by officers when they called upon Johnson to arrest him for a violation of a city ordinance.
The transcript of the hearing upon a motion to suppress evidence reveals all the facts we have in the case at bar. On October 10, 1960, the city police learned of the burglary of a doctor's office. A quantity of codeine and a portable radio had been reported missing. Apparently something about the burglary prompted officers from the burglary detail to inquire whether Johnson was at large. From sources which do not appear of record, the police learned that Johnson and a female companion might be found at a Portland hotel, registered as man and wife under an assumed name. The officers checked at the hotel desk and ascertained that the persons in whom they were interested were in their room.
The transcript contains this testimony of one of the officers:
* * *.'
The officer said he immediately observed the bottle of pills in plain view on the dresser. The bottle bore a serial number which the officer said he recognized as a narcotics registry number. The officers thereupon took possession of the bottle.
When the officers discovered Johnson masquerading under a false name, they had reason to believe him guilty of a misdemeanor. Registering under a false name is a violation of the Portland License and Business Code, § 20-4811. We need not now decide whether it is a continuing offense justifying arrest without a warrant under ORS 133.310(1). In any event, Johnson's reply brief concedes that the entry of the officers in his room was lawful.
Assuming, then, that a lawful arrest was made in good faith, the officers had the right, and indeed the duty, to follow Johnson into his room in order to maintain their control over him after he was arrested. It then would follow that the officers had the right to observe the visible contents of Johnson's room. State v. Chinn, supra. Further, if the officers observed the bottle as they said they did, there would be little doubt that the seizure of the pills was also lawful. See State v. Chinn, supra.
It will be recalled that the officers testified that they entered the room and saw the pill bottle in plain sight. According to their testimony, then, there was no intensive search prior to the seizure of the bottle. Johnson, on the other hand, testified that the officers discovered the bottle only after rummaging through the drawers of the dresser. This evidence is directly conflicting. The nature of the search depends upon whose testimony is believed. We must assume, from the trial court's ruling, that the testimony of the officers was believed. If the officers are not to be believed in this case, there would be serious doubt whether ransacking a person's dresser drawers is a reasonable incident of an arrest for a violation of the hotel ordinance. See State v. Chinn, supra. However, as Johnson is contending that the search was unreasonable, it was up to him to produce some credible proof that would justify the trial court in believing his story. See Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, 78 A.L.R.2d 233 (1960). We accept the trial court's view of the disputed facts.
The next question is whether the property taken was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Elkins
...not involved here. Evidence illegally seized by the police may not be used by the state in a criminal prosecution. State v. Johnson, 232 Or. 118, 119, 374 P.2d 481 (1962); State v. Chinn, 231 Or. 259, 265, 373 P.2d 392 (1962); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 The Or......
-
State v. McCoy
...and, being in plain sight, no search for it was required, State v. Riley, 240 Or. 521, 523, 402 P.2d 741 (1965); State v. Johnson, 232 Or. 118, 122, 374 P.2d 481 (1962). The Harris, Johnson and Abrams cases were prosecutions for rape; the Anderson case for possession of burglar's tools. In ......
-
State v. Florance
...Hayes, 119 Or. 554, 556, 249 P. 637 (1926); State v. Dempster, 248 Or. 404, 407--408, 434 P.2d 746 (1967). See also State v. Johnson, 232 Or. 118, 122, 374 P.2d 481 (1962), and State v. Johnson, 249 Or. 55, 56, 437 P.2d 110 (1968). But see State v. Elkins, 245 Or. 279, 283, 422 P.2d 250 The......
-
State v. Herbert
...when he saw and seized the paperfold. We hold that the seizure of the paperfold was valid under Article I, section 9. State v. Johnson, 232 Or. 118, 374 P.2d 481 (1962); see also State v. Elkins, 245 Or. 279, 283, 422 P.2d 250 (1966). 2 The seizure was also valid for the same reasons under ......