State v. Johnson, No. 57284
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | Submitted to MOORE; LeGRAND |
| Citation | 232 N.W.2d 477 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Russell Clifton JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 57284 |
| Decision Date | 29 August 1975 |
Page 477
v.
Russell Clifton JOHNSON, Appellant.
Page 478
Bruce E. Cornell, Fort Dodge, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, atty. Gen., and Louie F. Beisser, Webster County Atty., for appellee.
Submitted to MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ.
LeGRAND, Justice.
This appeal presents only one issue, an evidentiary matter concerning the admission of certain physical evidence seized by police offers at defendant's residence at the time of his arrest. The trial court held the items were properly admissible, and we affirm.
The question was first raised by an unsuccessful motion to suppress and was later renewed during trial when the disputed items were offered as exhibits.
The evidence discloses that David Rohrer and Terry Claborn occupied an apartment together in Fort Dodge. On the evening of December 8, 1973, defendant, with whom they were acquainted, stopped by the apartment, and the three visited for a short period. Defendant then produced a gun and announced he was robbing the other two. He compelled them to carry a TV set, a radio and tape player, a turntable, a speaker and a set of earphones to his car. He then left with the stolen articles.
The two victims immediately reported the robbery to the Fort Dodge Police Department, and a warrant was issued for defendant's arrest. With the help of Rohrer and Claborn, Iowa Highway Patrolman Weiland later located defendant's residence. He called in for additional officers to help in making the arrest. When they arrived, the men stationed themselves strategically about the house to prevent defendant's escape. Weiland then directed the headlights of his car toward the house and announced over his public address system that they had a warrant for defendant's arrest, demanding that he turn the lights on in the house. Getting no immediate response, Weiland repeated his message, adding that the house was surrounded. Almost immediately part of the house was lighted up and defendant came to the door. He was only partially dressed. He indicated by gesture he wanted permission to complete dressing. Officer Weiland told him he could do so but
Page 479
ordered him to leave the door open, which he did.Officer Weiland and several other officers then entered the house and took defendant into their physical custody. At the same time they seized several items identified by one of the robbery victims (who was there present) as having been stolen by defendant. There items--a turntable, a speaker, earphones and a TV set--were plainly visible after the officers entered the house and, perhaps, even from the porch before they did so.
The officers had no search warrant when the property was taken. Defendant alleges the seizure resulted from an unreasonable search in violation of Amendment 4 of the federal Constitution. We hold seizure of this evidence was proper and that the trial court correctly allowed it to be admitted at defendant's trial.
Of course, it is only unreasonable searches and seizures which are constitutionally proscribed. Ordinarily a search warrant issued on probable cause is a Sine qua non to a legal search; but there are some situations in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Hilliard
...1970); United States v. Cognato, 408 F.Supp. 1000 (D.Conn.1976); State v. Lasley, Minn., 236 N.W.2d 604 (1975); State v. Johnson, Iowa, 232 N.W.2d 477 ** The fact that the entry was made at night (early a.m.) cuts both ways. Although the late hour may, as indicated, underscore the impractic......
-
State v. Hall, No. 57467
...as significant evidence relating to the crime under investigation. State v. Davis, 228 N.W.2d 67, 70--71 (Iowa 1975); State v. Johnson, 232 N.W.2d 477, 480 (Iowa Defendant next insists that the failure to inventory the hair on the return should have excluded it from introduction as evidence......
-
State v. Jordan
...272 Md. 179, 321 A.2d 301 (1974), quoting Dorman v. United States, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 435 F.2d 385 (1970); State v. Johnson, Iowa, 232 N.W.2d 477 (1975). A combination of these circumstances may create an exigency justifying action before a warrant can be obtained, satisfying the rule of......
-
Latham v. Sullivan, No. 2-63201
...immediately after the initial observation by the police, and a subsequent search incident to that arrest. Id.; see State v. Johnson, 232 N.W.2d 477, 479-80 (Iowa 1975). The exigent circumstances were, however, destroyed by the police officer's delay and subsequent 1 Plaintiff petitioned for......
-
Com. v. Hilliard
...1970); United States v. Cognato, 408 F.Supp. 1000 (D.Conn.1976); State v. Lasley, Minn., 236 N.W.2d 604 (1975); State v. Johnson, Iowa, 232 N.W.2d 477 ** The fact that the entry was made at night (early a.m.) cuts both ways. Although the late hour may, as indicated, underscore the impractic......
-
State v. Hall, No. 57467
...as significant evidence relating to the crime under investigation. State v. Davis, 228 N.W.2d 67, 70--71 (Iowa 1975); State v. Johnson, 232 N.W.2d 477, 480 (Iowa Defendant next insists that the failure to inventory the hair on the return should have excluded it from introduction as evidence......
-
State v. Jordan
...272 Md. 179, 321 A.2d 301 (1974), quoting Dorman v. United States, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 435 F.2d 385 (1970); State v. Johnson, Iowa, 232 N.W.2d 477 (1975). A combination of these circumstances may create an exigency justifying action before a warrant can be obtained, satisfying the rule of......
-
Latham v. Sullivan, No. 2-63201
...immediately after the initial observation by the police, and a subsequent search incident to that arrest. Id.; see State v. Johnson, 232 N.W.2d 477, 479-80 (Iowa 1975). The exigent circumstances were, however, destroyed by the police officer's delay and subsequent 1 Plaintiff petitioned for......