State v. Robinson

• Citation: 447 S.W.2d 71
• Decision Date: 13 October 1969
• Docket Number: No. 54310,No. 1,54310,1
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Hallie ROBINSON, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 71

447 S.W.2d 71

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Hallie ROBINSON, Appellant.

No. 54310.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Oct. 13, 1969.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Court En Banc Denied

Nov. 10, 1969.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., John C. Craft, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Edward T. Foote, Eric V. Lemon, St. Louis, for appellant, Hallie Robinson. Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, St. Louis, of counsel.

HIGGINS, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of possession of Cannabis Sativa (marijuana), a narcotic drug. Pursuant to that verdict and upon a finding of prior convictions, the court assessed appellant's punishment at 8-years' imprisonment in custody of the Department of Corrections and sentenced him accordingly. Sections 195.020, 195.200, and 556.280, V.A.M.S.

At approximately 10:40 p.m., March 7, 1968, St. Louis Police Officers Robert Nichols and Roy Kessler were in an unmarked police car in the vicinity of Whittier and Olive Streets in St. Louis, Missouri and observed an automobile with two occupants exceeding the speed limit while going south on Whittier from Olive. Officer Nichols followed the automobile and it 'sped up at a high speed and I begin to chase the car then. * * * The car went south on Whittier to McPherson and violated the stop sign, then went east on McPherson from Whittier. When I made the turn onto McPherson I turned on the siren and my partner (Kessler) turned on the hand red light that we have in the car. * * * The car violated the stop sign at Sarah and McPherson and then went north on Sarah to the south alley in the rear of Olive Street and then made a right turn to the alley and went east in the alley * * *. At this time we paced the car at sixty miles an hour in a fifteen mile zone * * *.' The chase covered six city blocks and ended when the officers 'pulled into the Olive Street entrance of the parking lot and met the car headon and stopped it.' Officer Nichols 'ordered the driver (appellant) from the car and placed him under arrest for the traffic violations and also for no driver's license. * * * I made a search of his person, his clothing. * * * In his right side coat pocket I found two hand rolled cigarettes that contained a green vegetation that I believed to be marijuana.' The cigarettes and coat were taken to the police laboratory where they were found to contain marijuana. Appellant was also arrested at the parking lot for possession of marijuana.

Appellant does not question the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the state's In making his contention on this issue, appellant concedes that the same issue was presented in State v. Moody, Mo., 443 S.W.2d 802, and state that the law in Missouri under that case is 'that a lawful arrest of an automobile driver for a traffic offense provides a constitutionally adequate predicate for a contemporaneous search of a driver.' He states also that Moody 'was subjected to a thoroughgoing search of his person (including the pockets of his outer garments) following his arrest for a minor traffic violation. The search disclosed narcotics, for possession of which appellant was arrested. This is precisely the factual picture of the present case.'

case, but contends the search and seizure violated his constitutional rights and that his motion to suppress the marijuana cigarettes and particles found in the coat pocket should have been sustained and those items excluded at trial. Appellant's brief asserts 'the issue presented on this appeal is whether an individual's arrest for a traffic offense justifies a thoroughgoing police search of his person, including a direct intrusion into his pockets.'

Accordingly, this case is governed by State v. Moody, supra. As in that case, the arrest of Hallie Robinson on traffic offenses was lawful; it was not contended, nor was it shown, that the arrest for traffic violations was pretextual; and the search incident to the lawful arrest which disclosed the items relating to the crime of which he was convicted was of his person. State v. Moody, supra, 443 S.W.2d l.c. 804(4).

In addition to cases cited by appellant which were discussed in State v. Moody, supra, appellant cites Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889; Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1912, 20 L.Ed.2d 917; United States v. Hostetter, D.C.Del., 295 F.Supp. 1312, and Bailey v. State, Ark., 438 S.W.2d 321, but they are not in point on this issue because 'admittedly, neither Terry, Sibron, Hostetter nor Bailey involved persons arrested for traffic violations.'

Appellant also attacks the evidence by charging the court erred in admitting the marijuana cigarettes and particles into evidence because a chain of possession of those items from seizure to introduction in evidence was not shown.

The chain of possession of the marijuana found in the right-hand pocket of the coat appellant was wearing when arrested begins with seizure of the coat by the police officers. They delivered it to the police laboratory in an evidence bag 'stapled sealed.' The two cigarettes were sealed in an envelope for delivery to the laboratory. Both the bag and the envelope were received at the laboratory by Joseph Stevens from one of the police officers (Nichols or Kessler) whom Mr. Stevens recognized when they testified as witnesses at trial. The bag was placed in the evidence locker...