State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 29 August 1922 |
| Docket Number | 17128. |
| Citation | 121 Wash. 153,209 P. 9 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. MILLER. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; Jos. Sessions, Judge.
W. J Miller was convicted of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Joseph J. Lavin, of Spokane, and John T. Mulligan, of Los Angeles Cal., for appellant.
Roy C Fox, of Davenport, for the State.
On December 11, 1921, deputy sheriffs, engaged in official business, came upon the defendant, apparently asleep in a disabled auto truck on the highway near Davenport, Wash. Noticing his condition, the officers stopped to inquire. While one of them aroused the defendant, the other one, standing by the truck, observed it contained a large quantity of whisky. The officers arrested the defendant and took charge of the truck and its contents. Upon an information charging the defendant with the crime of being a bootlegger, he was tried and found guilty by a jury of unlawfully having intoxicating liquor in his possession. From a judgment on the verdict an appeal has been taken.
The first assignment of error is: (1) The denial of appellant's motion before the beginning of the trial for the return of the whisky claimed to have been taken by the officers without authority of law; and (2) allowing it to be received in evidence over his objection that it had been seized without a search warrant and in violation of his constitutional rights. As to the first, on the authority of State ex rel. Yakima v. Superior Court (Wash.) 206 P. 925, the application was properly denied. Concerning the second, we are not called upon to decide if the whisky was admissible in evidence, if it be assumed the officers got possession of it by a trespass, for in this case there was no trespass. It requires a warrant to seize only in those instances where the seizure is assisted or reached by a necessary search. The constitutional provisions invoked by the appellant do not prohibit a seizure without a warrant, where there is no need of a search, and where contraband subject-matter or unlawful possession of it is fully disclosed and open to the eye and hand. State v. Llewellyn (Wash.) 205 P. 394; State v. Quinn et al., 111 S.C. 174, 97 S.E. 62, 3 A. L. R. 1500.
The statute upon which this case was prosecuted was enacted by the Legislature of 1917. Chapter 19, Laws 1917. It was an amendment of Initiative Measure No. 3,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Bremerton v. Smith, 30474.
...not apply in cases in which articles seized were secured as a result of a search, but were in plain view of the officers. State v. Miller, 121 Wash. 153, 209 P. 9; v. Duncan, 124 Wash. 372, 214 P. 838; State v. Dutcher, 141 Wash. 627, 251 P. 879; State v. Parent, 156 Wash. 604, 287 P. 662; ......
-
Star Square Auto Supply Co. v. Gerk
...was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens." In State v. Miller, 121 Wash. 153, l.c. 154, the Supreme Court of Washington, speaking to the contention that the seizure by police officers of an automobile truck,......
-
State v. Budd
...that “every entry potentially involves a plain view ‘search’ ” as unavailing. Id. at 565–66, 69 P.3d 862 (relying on State v. Miller, 121 Wash. 153, 154, 209 P. 9 (1922) ). The argument should be equally unavailing here, where it is undisputed that the troopers entered in order to seize Bud......
-
Star Square Auto Supply Co. v. Gerk
...was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens." In State v. Miller, 121 Wash. 153, l. c. 154, the Court of Washington, speaking to the contention that the seizure by police officers of an automobile truck, contai......