State v. Rush, No. 34766

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtSIMEONE
Citation497 S.W.2d 213
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frederick V. RUSH, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division Two
Decision Date26 June 1973
Docket NumberNo. 34766

Page 213

497 S.W.2d 213
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Frederick V. RUSH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 34766.
Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division Two.
June 26, 1973.

Page 214

Daniel P. Reardon, Jr., St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, J., Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., Nels C. Moss, Jr., Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.

SIMEONE, Judge.

This is an appeal by appellant Frederick V. Rush from a jury-waived judgment of conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for illegally and feloniously possessing heroin. The trial court found defendant guilty as charged and assessed his punishment at two years imprisonment by the Department of Corrections.

The sole issue to be determined on this appeal is whether there was a consent search and seizure of the heroin from the appellant.

On January 30, 1971 at approximately 12:15 a.m., two police officers of the metropolitan St. Louis Police Department, in an unmarked police car, observed an automobile with four persons inside operating without lights going westbound on Evans Avenue. They pulled the car over at about 3891 Evans Avenue and Officer Bill Hawkins walked to the passenger's side of the vehicle. The defendant was seated in the right rear seat. The officer saw defendant remove his hat and place a 'small shiny object in his hatband, and (replace) his hat on his head.' The officer asked the defendant to step from the automobile and asked him what he had placed in his hat. Defendant stated that he had not put anything in his hat; he handed the hat to the officer and said 'Go ahead and look, man.' or words to that effect. The officer did not ask appellant to give him the hat. The officer looked in the hat and found a small package containing a 'white powder substance,' which was determined to be .09 grams of heroin in the hatband. Appellant was then arrested and advised of his rights. No warnings concerning search and seizure were made.

The operator of the vehicle was a person who had a reputation as a 'drug user and a reported drug dealer.' He and the other passengers were taken to the police station but they were subsequently released.

When the officer was asked on cross-examination whether it would be fair to conclude that the officers were going to search the occupants of the vehicle, he answered 'In all likelihood, yes, they probably would have been searched.' It is true that all of the occupants were searched.

The defendant's version of the incident was that he did not hand his hat to the officer but that it was taken from him and that he did not voluntarily give the officer his hat.

A motion to suppress was filed, heard and overruled prior to trial. The motion was renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence and preserved in the motion for new trial.

The court found the defendant guilty and, in its findings of fact and conclusions

Page 215

of law, found that 'the defendant was in control of his hat at the time the automobile in which he was riding was stopped; that at the time he gave his hat to the police officer he was not under arrest; that he gave his verbal assent to the police officer to examine his hat; that his assent was given freely and with understanding and was not given under any duress or force exerted by the police officer. The Court finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant on January 30, 1971, was illegally and feloniously in possession of a narcotic drug, heroin.'

The motion for new trial was overruled, allocution granted and sentence imposed.

The appellant's sole point on this appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the heroin seized from the appellant on the ground that the seizure violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and § 15 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, V.A.M.S.

We have jurisdiction because the construction of the Constitution is not involved.

This is a court tried case. We are not to set aside the trial court's findings unless they be clearly erroneous, Rules 73.01(d) and 28.18,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • State v. Blair, No. 62782
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1982
    ...fraud or misleading on the part of the officers, and the evidence as to what was said and done by the person consenting. State v. Rush, 497 S.W.2d 213, 215 The evidence supports a finding that on Tuesday, August 21, the day before appellant's arrest, police officers went to the home of appe......
  • State v. Quinn, No. 38799
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 14, 1978
    ...v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970)." 6 Other exceptions, of course, are recognized consent, State v. Rush, 497 S.W.2d 213, 215-216 (Mo.App.1973); exigent circumstances, Wiley, 522 S.W.2d at 293-295; inventory searches, Opperman, 96 S.Ct. at 3098, State v. Achter, ......
  • State v. Rogers, No. 40039
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 19, 1979
    ...As was said in State v. Quinn, 565 S.W.2d 665, 671 (Mo.App.1978), other exceptions may be added to this list: consent, State v. Rush, 497 S.W.2d 213, 215-216 (Mo.App.1973); exigent circumstances, Wiley, 522 S.W.2d at 293-295; inventory searches, Opperman, 96 S.Ct. at 3098; State v. Archter,......
  • State v. Kleypas, No. 10838
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 10, 1980
    ...by the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Rush, 497 S.W.2d 213 (Mo.App.1973). That consent may be implied as well as express. United States v. Turbyfill, 525 F.2d 57 (8th Cir. 1975); State v. Berry, 526 S.W.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • State v. Blair, No. 62782
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1982
    ...fraud or misleading on the part of the officers, and the evidence as to what was said and done by the person consenting. State v. Rush, 497 S.W.2d 213, 215 The evidence supports a finding that on Tuesday, August 21, the day before appellant's arrest, police officers went to the home of appe......
  • State v. Quinn, No. 38799
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 14, 1978
    ...Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970)." 6 Other exceptions, of course, are recognized consent, State v. Rush, 497 S.W.2d 213, 215-216 (Mo.App.1973); exigent circumstances, Wiley, 522 S.W.2d at 293-295; inventory searches, Opperman, 96 S.Ct. at 3098, State v. Achter......
  • State v. Rogers, No. 40039
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 19, 1979
    ...As was said in State v. Quinn, 565 S.W.2d 665, 671 (Mo.App.1978), other exceptions may be added to this list: consent, State v. Rush, 497 S.W.2d 213, 215-216 (Mo.App.1973); exigent circumstances, Wiley, 522 S.W.2d at 293-295; inventory searches, Opperman, 96 S.Ct. at 3098; State v. Archter,......
  • State v. Kleypas, No. 10838
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 10, 1980
    ...by the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Rush, 497 S.W.2d 213 (Mo.App.1973). That consent may be implied as well as express. United States v. Turbyfill, 525 F.2d 57 (8th Cir. 1975); State v. Berry, 526 S.W.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT