State v. Stein, 45392
| Decision Date | 14 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45392,45392 |
| Parties | The STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Madison STEIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. It is not essential to the validity of a consent to a search of private premises that the owner or possessor first be given a Miranda type warning. (Following State v. McCarty, 199 Kan. 116, 427 P.2d 616.)
2. A high school principal having custody and control of school lockers and having access thereto, and possessing a master list of all lock combinations and a key which will open every locker, is empowered to open and search the same for contraband upon the request of officers.
3. The record is examined in an action wherein the defendant was convicted of second degree burglary and grand larceny, and for reasons appearing in the opinion it is held (1) the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion to suppress evidence and (2) the verdict of guilty is sustained by substantial competent evidence.
Richard O. Skoog, Ottawa, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Edward Collister, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Atty. Gen., and Myron S. Steere, Ottawa, were with him on the brief for the appellee.
The defendant, Madison Stein, was charged with second degree burglary and grand larceny. He was convicted on both charges and has appealed.
Two points, only, are raised on this appeal: (1) that the defendant's motion to suppress evidence was erroneously overruled, and (2) that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction.
A summary of certain evidence introduced by the state is essential to an understanding of both contentions.
On the night of January 22, 1968, the Butler's Music Store in Ottawa was broken into and certain property was taken from the safe, including more than $200 in cash and currency, a paper sack of Kennedy half dollars, a 1798 silver dollar, other silver dollars, foreign coins, three revolvers and keys. Only insurance papers remained. At the time the burglary was committed the defendant was a student of the Ottawa High School.
On the day following, two police officers visited the high school principal who, at their request, and with Mr. Stein's consent and on his own judgment, opened Stein's school locker and brought its contents to his office. The defendant agreed that the officers might look through the contents of the locker and a search thereof revealed a key in the bottom of a pack of cigarettes. The defendant said the key was to a locker in the Kansas City Union Station in which he had left some clothing on his return from Texas and that his parole master had refused to let him go to Kansas City to return his clothes.
When the officers suggested they would help him in getting his clothing, Stein accompanied them to the police station where a phone call to Kansas City disclosed there was no such locker at the station. Further investigation revealed that the key was to a locker at the Lawrence Bus Depot. A search warrant way obtained and the Lawrence locker yielded a considerable amount of cash and currency, a 1798 silver dollar, 8 other silver dollars, 52 half dollars, a paper sack with Butler's name thereon containing keys and foreign coins and a silver dollar with 'Beth Butler' stamped therein. All this property was identified by Mr. Butler.
At the trial the property taken from the Lawrence locker was admitted into evidence after the court first heard testimony at an out of court hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. This ruling is alleged to be error, the contention essentially being that Mr. Stein was not given a Miranda warning before he consented to the search of the school locker.
It is conceded that no such warning was given Stein prior to the time his school locker was opened by the principal and his effects brought to the school office. Despite this fact, we believe the defendant's argument must be rejected on two grounds.
In the first place we have recently held, in State v. McCarty, 199 Kan. 116, 427 P.2d 616, that the Miranda rule is not applicable to a search and seizure situation; that the validity of a consent to the search of private premises does not depend on the owner's having first been given the warning delineated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974.
The rationale of the McCarty case is exemplified in cases from jurisdictions other than our own. (State v. Oldham, 92 Idaho 124, 438 P.2d 275; State v. Forney, 181 Neb. 757, 150 N.W.2d 915; State v. Forney, 182 Neb. 802, 157 N.W.2d 403; State v. Baker, 183 Neb. 499, 161 N.W.2d 864; Lamot v. State, 7 Md.App. 378, 234 A.2d 615.)
It is true that in McCarty this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thomas
...of evidence pointing to his guilt.' Six jurisdictions have disagreed with the Oregon court. They are Kansas (State v. Stein, 203 Kan. 638, 639--640, 456 P.2d 1, 2--3; State v. McCarty, 199 Kan. 116, 118, 427 P.2d 616, 619--620); Illinois (People v. Trent, 85 IllApp.2d 157, 161--162, 228 N.E......
-
State v. Schultz
...require Miranda warnings. State v. Ulriksen, 210 Kan. 795, 798, 504 P.2d 232 (1972) (no previous warnings required); State v. Stein, 203 Kan. 638, 639, 456 P.2d 1 (1969) (same); State v. McCarty, 199 Kan. 116, 119-20, 427 P.2d 616 (1967), cert. denied 392 U.S. 308, 88 S.Ct. 2065, 20 L.Ed.2d......
-
Parkhurst v. State
...v. People, 170 Colo. 520, 462 P.2d 594 (1969); State v. Oldham, 92 Idaho 124, 132, 438 P.2d 275, 283 (1968); State v. Stein, 203 Kan. 638, 639-640, 456 P.2d 1, 2-3 (1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 947, 90 S.Ct. 966, 25 L.Ed.2d 120 (1970). Contra, State v. Williams, 248 Or. 85, 432 P.2d 679 (19......
-
Stamper v. State
...is not a prerequisite to obtaining a consent to search; see: State v. Oldham, 92 Idaho 124, 438 P.2d 275 (1968); State v. Stein, 203 Kan. 638, 456 P.2d 1 (1969); People v. Lowe, 200 Colo. 470, 616 P.2d 118 (1980); People v. Phillips, 197 Colo. 546, 594 P.2d 1053 (1979); State v. Rodriguez, ......