Thomas v. State
| Citation | 146 N.E. 850,196 Ind. 234 |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24,764 |
| Parties | Thomas v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 22, 1925.
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Evidence considered and held sufficient to prove transportation of liquor in an automobile.---Evidence that one accused of transporting liquor was seen to drive through an alley, get out of his car and go to the back, unlock and lift up the lid and lift up a five-gallon container of alcohol is sufficient to prove transportation of liquor. p. 237.
2 ARREST.---A peace officer may arrest without warrant upon belief that a felony has been committed.---A peace officer may arrest without a warrant when he sees a man get out of his automobile and lifting up the lid of the rear compartment take out a can therefrom which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing contains whisky or alcohol. p. 237.
3. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---A person's vehicle may be searched when he is lawfully arrested.---A person taken in the very act of committing a felony is not immune from the search of his person and effects, including the vehicle he is using to aid in its commission. p. 237.
From Marion Criminal Court (56,561); Frank A. Symmes, Special Judge.
J Franklin Thomas was convicted of transporting liquor in an automobile, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Walter W. Maddux and E. E. McFerren, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh, Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant was charged by affidavit with the offense of knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile, and was found guilty. Overruling his motion for a new trial is assigned as error, under which he insists that his motion to suppress certain evidence was improperly overruled, and that except for the evidence thus sought to be suppressed there was no evidence of his guilt. The motion, verified by the oath of the defendant, averred that without a search warrant certain policemen searched an automobile, and confiscated intoxicating liquors that were in it, for which reason the court was requested to "suppress the evidence so unlawfully obtained," neither the liquor nor other evidence referred to being more particularly described.
The bill of exceptions purports to set out the "evidence on motion to suppress the evidence," separately, as follows: That certain police officers had a complaint that some men whose names were not given were hauling liquor to a place in an alley in the city of Indianapolis where a shed was full of empty jugs and cans in which "mule" had been delivered; that they were hiding in the shed "waiting there to see them come," when appellant and another man drove past and stopped in front of a house about seventy-five feet away; that the alley was a public highway; that the policemen saw appellant get out and unlock the back of the car, which was a Maxwell coupe, and raise the lid, and saw him reach down in there and raise up a five-gallon container of alcohol; that they then ran up to appellant, and when he heard them coming he put the container back into the car and dropped the top down and locked it; that the container was a five-gallon can which was not transparent; that the policemen placed appellant and his companion under arrest, and then unlocked and opened the back part of the car, and in it found the five-gallon container of alcohol, and also a gallon can, being six gallons altogether; that the policemen had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial