State v. Quinn

• Citation: 97 S.E. 62,111 S.C. 174
• Decision Date: 08 October 1918
• Docket Number: 10093.
• Parties: STATE v. QUINN ET AL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

97 S.E. 62

111 S.C. 174

STATE v. QUINN ET AL.

No. 10093.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 8, 1918

Watts J., dissenting.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; Mendel L. Smith, Judge.

R. L Quinn and others were convicted of unlawfully transporting liquor, and they appeal. Affirmed.

The following are the exceptions:

(1) That his honor erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty, when the undisputed testimony showed that the evidence upon which the defendants were arrested and convicted was obtained by an unlawful search of the persons and property of the defendants without due process of law.

(2) Because his honor erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty, when the undisputed testimony showed that the defendants were stopped, their persons and property forcibly searched under the authority of neither an arrest or search warrant, and without due process of law, and when it was admitted by the officers that the arrest was made only after evidence procured by such unlawful search.

(3) That his honor erred in that he charged upon the facts of the case in violation of section 26, art. 5, of the Constitution of 1895, by the following statement in the presence of the jury: "There is testimony offered in this case to show--now, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, I don't say it shows, to show--that the witnesses, or rural policemen of the county of Greenville, and of course the law invests them with the power and authority governing such officers, that upon information communicated to them they went out for the purpose of finding the defendants in this case; that the defendants were in an automobile drunk on the public highway, and at the time running their automobile in excess of the legal rate of speed; that as soon as the opportunity was presented they made a search of the automobile in question, and found the liquor which has been offered in evidence, consisting of two quarts, and a quart bottle about half full. Whereupon they were arrested and taken to jail."

(4) That his honor erred in charging the jury that the law governing the conduct of rural policemen for Greenville county was as contained in section 2 of an act passed in 1914, (Acts of 1914, page 754) which reads as follows: " Duty to Patrol County.--That it shall be the duty of the said rural policemen, under the direction of the chief to patrol and police the county, and to prevent or detect offenses against the criminal law, and prosecute all persons for violation of the criminal law of every kind, making arrests upon their own initiation, as well as upon complaint or information, and to seize without warrant, and hold all alcoholic liquors in possession of any person for unlawful use, and * * * if such action be begun and the judgment of the court be adverse to the plaintiff, then such liquors shall be destroyed publicly by the chief of rural police, and such rural policemen shall report all their acts, and all known or suspected violations of criminal law to the chief, who shall make such reports, and give such information as may be requested by the solicitor, the grand jury or the legislative delegation of said county"--since said section is in violation of section 5, art 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina of 1895, and of section 1, art. 14 of the Amendments to the United States Constitution, and of section 16, art. 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina of 1895.

(5) That his honor erred in charging the jury that the law governing the conduct of rural policemen for Greenville county was as contained in section 3 of an act passed in 1914 (Acts of 1914, page 755) which reads as follows: "That said policemen shall have authority for any freshly committed crime, to arrest without warrant, and said policemen shall, while pursuing a criminal, or suspected criminal, have authority to make arrest, or arrests, in incorporated cities and towns, and in pursuit of the criminal to enter homes, or break therein, whether in their own county or in an adjoining county; and they shall have authority to summon the posse comitatus to assist in enforcing the laws, and any person who shall fail to respond and render assistance, when so summoned, shall be guilty of misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment for not exceeding thirty days, or fine of not exceeding one hundred ($100) dollars"--since said section is in violation of section 5, art. 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina of 1895, and of section 1, art. 14, of the Amendments to the United States Constitution, and of section 16, art. 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina of 1895.

(6) Because the court erred in not granting defendants a new trial upon the grounds of motion for a new trial as set forth in the record.

Bonham & Price, of Greenville, for appellants.

J. Robert Martin, Sol., of Greenville, for the State.

GAGE J.

Indictment for unlawfully transporting liquor in Greenville county; verdict of guilty; appeal by the defendants.

There are five exceptions, reduced to three questions in the appellants' brief: (1) Verdict ought to have been directed for defendants; (2) the court charged on the facts; (3) the act of 1914 (28 Stats. 754) is in violation of the state and federal Constitutions. Let the exceptions be reported. The prime contention of the appellants is that liquor was discovered by an illegal search of the defendants, and that the case is thus brought within the late case of Town of Blacksburg v. Beam, 104 S.C. 146, 88 S.E. 441, L. R. A. 1916E, 714.

Facts make a case; there is no such thing as law separable from facts. There were two witnesses, both for the state.

The testimony of Gossnell shows this transaction: The place was on the Buncombe road, running north out of the city of Greenville, and where that road and the track of the Southern Railway cross. Gossnell and Beamlett were rural policemen, and had passed north up the Buncombe road about three miles, at which point they met the defendants, Quinn, Ballew, Lee, Vaughn, and Beasley, in a Ford car going south towards the city. The officers turned around and also moved south, following the Ford car. At the crossing of the highway and the railway the Ford car had been halted, as were the policemen, too, by a passing freight train. The policemen alighted from the car and stood the one on one side and the other on the opposite side of the Ford car. Ballew was driver of the Ford car, and Quinn sat by him. The three others were on the back seat, and those three were drunk. The officers found on the back seat a full quart of whisky, and Beamlett picked up a full quart of whisky down about the front where Ballew sat. Quinn had something in his hands, holding it down between his legs, and Gossnell pulled it out, and it was a quart bottle of whisky full. At that stage the arrest was made.

The testimony of Beamlett shows this transaction: The policemen alighted at the crossing and walked one on one side and one on the other side of the Ford. The occupants of the Ford car were all under the influence of liquor, save Ballew, and two of them were drunk to helplessness. This policeman found one quart in the back of the car at the feet of Lee.

The defendants offered no testimony. It is true both policemen testified in ipsissima verba that they stopped and "searched the persons" of the occupants of the car and that they...