State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 14 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 55464,55464,2 |
| Citation | 462 S.W.2d 425 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Frank SMITH, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Charles A. Blackmar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Frank v. DeStefano, St. Louis, for appellant.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Frank Smith has appealed from the judgment entered pursuant to jury verdict in which he was found guilty of burglary and of stealing in conjunction with the burglary. See § 560.110 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. Charged as a second offender, proof thereof was presented, proper findings were made by the trial court, and appellant was sentenced by the court to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of five years each.
The first point presented on this appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's oral motion to suppress evidence, and in then admitting into evidence certain items seized from appellant's automobile. A brief statement of the circumstances is necessary.
On September 10, 1969, about 12:30 o'clock in the afternoon St. Louis Police Officers Richard Berner and Billie Wilson stopped an automobile being operated by appellant and in which Leo P. Miller was a passenger because the automobile displayed a license plate reported to have been stolen. When Officer Berner approached the automobile he observed some clothing on the back seat and in boxes on the floor of the automobile, and he also saw a rifle with the butt on the floor and the barrel pointing toward the back window. The trunk to the automobile was open, and in the trunk preventing the trunk lid from being closed was a large object covered by a rug. Appellant was told that he was under arrest for 'stealing under fifty dollars, a license plate.' He was then advised of his constitutional rights, searched, and with Leo Miller was taken to the Fifth Avenue District Police Station. While appellant and Leo Miller were in the police station Officer Wilson searched appellant's automobile and found the rifle and clothing, previously seen, and some binoculars. When the rug was removed from around the object in the trunk, which was a color television set, it was discovered that the name on a 'warranty tag' was not that of appellant or Leo Miller. Further investigation revealed that the various items in the automobile had been so recently taken in a burglary of the home of Lloyd Murphy that Mr. Murphy did not yet know of the burglary and theft. Appellant was then placed under arrest for burglary.
In support of his contention that the search of the automobile and the seizure of the stolen property found therein violated his constitutional rights, appellant cites and relies on Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777, and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081. However, we are of the opinion that this case is governed by the later case of Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419.
In the Chambers case police officers stopped an automobile and arrested the occupants on the basis that the police had reasonable grounds to believe they had committed a robbery. The occupants and the automobile were taken to the police station where the automobile was later searched. The items taken therefrom were introduced in evidence against the defendant. After noting that the arrest was legal, but that the search of the automobile 'at another place, without a warrant' was not incident to the arrest, it was held that in the factual circumstances of that case the search of the automobile was permissible, and that it was not improper to introduce in evidence the fruits of that search. It was also noted, citing Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 88...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Achter
...taken in burglary); State v. Hohensee, 473 S.W.2d 379 (Mo.1971) (observance of gun case believed to be fruit of burglary); State v. Smith, 462 S.W.2d 425 (Mo.1970) (observance of rifle and suspicious collection of Situations in which an officer in the course of a traffic stop unexpectedly o......
-
State v. Lasley
...1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 161-62, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); State v. Smith, 462 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Mo.1970) (per curiam). Our holding is not inconsistent with State v. Hicks, 515 S.W.2d 518 (Mo.1974) (per curiam) and State v. Goodman, 449 S.......
-
State v. Wrose, 55851
...the car searched. We consider the search in this case was justified by the principles stated in Mace v. State, 458 S.W.2d 340; State v. Smith, Mo., 462 S.W.2d 425; and Chambers v. Maroney, supra; see also Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1635, 10 L.Ed.2d 726, and State v. Wats......
-
State v. Sechrest
...69 L.Ed. 543; Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419; Mace v. State, Mo.Sup., 458 S.W.2d 340(1); State v. Smith, Mo.Sup., 462 S.W.2d 425; State v. Edmonds, Mo.Sup., 462 S.W.2d 782(2, 3); and State v. Plant, Mo.Sup., 461 S.W.2d 736(1). For the reasons indicated we ru......