State v. Lunsford
Decision Date | 15 August 1983 |
Citation | 655 S.W.2d 921 |
Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terry Lee LUNSFORD, Defendant-Appellee. 655 S.W.2d 921 |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
David M. Himmelreich, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for plaintiff-appellant; William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen., Nashville, of counsel.
Dale M. Quillen, Lucinda Smith Weaver, Nashville, for defendant-appellee.
On April 9, 1980, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Officer Glen Taylor of the Hendersonville Police Department observed the appellee, Terry Lunsford, driving east on highway 31-E in a black Camaro. Earlier that day during his shift meeting Officer Taylor had been advised that appellee was a possible burglary suspect, and was told to be "on the lookout" for him.
When he first saw the appellee, Officer Taylor was sitting in his parked patrol unit; therefore, he radioed another unit in the vicinity "to keep a watch out" for appellee's vehicle. The order given at the shift meeting regarding the appellee was that if spotted, he was only to be observed.
Lieutenant Ray Holsberry had just arrived at the police department in a patrol unit when he heard Officer Taylor's radio transmission concerning appellee. He radioed back to Officer Taylor that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Terry Lunsford in Davidson County.
After receiving this information Officer Taylor began casual pursuit of the appellee without siren or flashing lights. When he regained sight of appellee's vehicle Officer Taylor saw that appellee was in the left hand turn lane at New Shackle Island Road and 31-E waiting for the light to change. After making sure there was no oncoming traffic Officer Taylor swerved into the westbound lane of 31-E, turned on his lights and siren and stopped in front of appellee's car to prevent his turning onto New Shackle Island Road.
The appellee was then arrested, handcuffed, and put in the back seat of Officer Taylor's patrol car. Officer Taylor asked Lunsford if he would consent to a search of his car trunk. Lunsford asked if Officer Taylor had a search warrant and when Officer Taylor replied that he did not the appellee did not further respond.
Lieutenant Holsberry arrived shortly thereafter and instructed Officer Taylor to have appellee's car moved because it was blocking the intersection. It was towed a short distance to the Animal Inn Clinic parking lot where an inventory search was commenced. Several items found in the trunk, it was later discovered, were stolen property, and formed the bulk of the evidence to be used against the appellee.
The appellee filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the inventory search of his automobile, and after a hearing the motion was overruled. Appellee entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of concealing stolen property over the value of two hundred dollars ($200.00), and waived his right to a jury trial. The court found appellee guilty and fixed his punishment at not less than three nor more than three years in the penitentiary. The ruling on appellee's motion to suppress was specifically reserved for appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress and we granted the state's application for permission to appeal.
In Drinkard v. State, 584 S.W.2d 650 (Tenn.1979), this Court set forth some guidelines regarding the impoundment of motor vehicles:
(Emphasis added.) 584 S.W.2d at 653.
The Florida Supreme Court has recently reached the same conclusion in Miller v. State, Fla., 403 So.2d 1307 (1981); Sanders v. State, Fla., 403 So.2d 973 (1981).
The appellee in the instant case was alone in his vehicle. He did not request to make other arrangements for its disposition, but the officer did not make known to the defendant his rights in this regard.
We have not indicated in any of our decisions that in order to avoid impoundment the arrested driver must have a companion passenger capable of assuming responsibility for the automobile contemporaneous with the arrest. In fact, there is language that indicates otherwise.
Drinkard v. State, 584 S.W.2d at 654.
In the absence of probable cause to believe that the vehicle is carrying contraband, the overriding question is whether, under all the attendant circumstances, impoundment is reasonably necessary. Drinkard v. State, supra; Miller v. State, supra, at 1312-1313.
We so indicated in another recent case, State v. Roberge, Tenn., 642 S.W.2d 716 (1982). There, we affirmed a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in which it held that the impoundment of an out-of-state vehicle was reasonable under the circumstances.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Vite-Espinoza
...S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tenn.1979). The guidelines of Drinkard "must be considered by law enforcement officers on the scene." State v. Lunsford, 655 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Tenn.1983). "Our holding does not mandate that an arrestee must be advised of all available options to impoundment; such a per se ru......
-
People v. Krezen
...to impound an automobile unless the driver consents or is given reasonable opportunity to make other arrangements. In State v. Lunsford, 655 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Tenn, 1983), the Supreme Court of Tennessee said that the police must advise a present, silent arrestee that the automobile will be i......
-
Servis v. Com.
...of the vehicle. In short, there was no showing that the impoundment of the car was reasonably necessary. See also State v. Lunsford, 655 S.W.2d 921, 923-24 (Tenn.1983). None of the circumstances cited in Opperman, Cabbler, Brown, Stevens, or Mitchell that support the validity and need for t......
-
Commonwealth v. Cases)1
...(police should permit driver to make reasonable alternative arrangements where he makes specific request to do so); State v. Lunsford, 655 S.W.2d 921, 924 (Tenn.1983) (based on circumstances, police should permit driver's reasonable alternative to impoundment); State v. Lizee, 173 Vt. 473, ......
-
Toward the decentralization of criminal procedure: state constitutional law and selective disincorporation.
...Crim. App. 1985); State v. Atkinson, 688 P.2d 832, 835 (Or. 1984); State v. Flittie, 425 N.W.2d 1, 4 (S.D. 1988); State v. Lunsford, 655 S.W.2d 921, 924 (Teen. 1983); Drinkard v. State, 584 S.W.2d 650, 654 (Teen. 1979); Autran v. State, 887 S.W.2d 31, 38 (Text Crim. App. 1994) (plurality op......