U.S. v. Martin, No. 77-1480
| Decision Date | 21 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1480 |
| Citation | 566 F.2d 1143 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommie E. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Hubert H. Bryant, U. S. Atty., and Ben F. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff-appellee.
Winn, Sakelaris & Mundell, Tulsa, Okl., for defendant-appellant.
Before SETH, McWILLIAMS and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
The single issue raised in this appeal concerns the lawfulness of an inventory search of an automobile. By indictment Tommie E. Martin was charged with knowingly and willfully possessing a Remington Arms Company Winchester Model 870 pump shotgun which was not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Prior to trial Martin filed a motion to suppress the use of the shotgun found by the arresting officers in the trunk of his car. It was Martin's position that the search of his automobile was in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and that the fruits of this search, namely the shotgun, should be suppressed.
An evidentiary hearing was held in connection with the motion to suppress. At that time the trial court heard testimony from the three police officers who were involved in Martin's arrest. The trial court concluded that the search of Martin's automobile was reasonable and did not violate Martin's Fourth Amendment rights.
Martin thereafter waived his right to trial by jury and, by agreement, the case was tried to the court on the basis of the testimony given at the hearing on the motion to suppress, coupled with certain stipulated facts. The trial judge adjudged Martin guilty of the crime charged, suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on three years probation. This appeal followed.
The hearing on the motion to suppress established that at about 2:30 a. m. Tulsa police officers responded to a call that there was a suspicious car parked in a residential area in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Residents reported that they had seen two persons leave the car, and then return to the car a few minutes later. The two officers who first arrived found two persons in the front seat of the car, both apparently asleep. The defendant Martin was seated on the passenger's side of the front seat, and one LaDon Roberts was more or less behind the steering wheel. Upon being aroused, both Roberts and Martin exited the car. It developed that Roberts had only been asleep, and he advised the officers that the car belonged to Martin. It is conceded that the car in question was in fact owned by Martin. According to the officers, Martin, however, was not only asleep, but was noticeably drunk, so much so that he almost fell getting out of the car. Martin was thereupon placed under arrest for violation of a Tulsa municipal ordinance prohibiting public drunkenness. The arresting officers decided that Martin was in no condition to drive his vehicle, and that under the circumstances the car should be towed to the police garage.
At about the same time a third Tulsa police officer arrived. He made a quick search of the interior of the car and found a loaded .22 calibre pistol in the console between the two front seats. Roberts, incidentally, was placed under arrest at the scene for carrying a concealed weapon. Shortly thereafter, a further search of the entire vehicle was made. Specifically, the investigating officers made what they described as an inventory search, in accord with standard Tulsa police practices, preparatory to having the car towed to the police garage. The search of the trunk revealed the shotgun which formed the basis for the present prosecution. Under the circumstances thus described, we, like the trial court, conclude that the search of Martin's automobile, and more particularly the search of the trunk, was reasonable and not in violation of Martin's Fourth Amendment rights.
On appeal Martin's basic position is that this was not truly an inventory search, and that the claim of an inventory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roth, 63741
...v. Edwards, 577 F.2d 883, 893-95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 968, 99 S.Ct. 458, 58 L.Ed.2d 427 (1978); United States v. Martin, 566 F.2d 1143, 1144-45 (10th Cir. 1977); Cabbler v. Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, 528 F.2d 1142, 1146-47 (4th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U......
-
U.S. v. Williams, 2:96 CR 114 B.
...inventory list." The procedure was followed in this case. This type of routine inventory is proper police practice. United States v. Martin, 566 F.2d 1143 (10th Cir.1977); United States v. Matthews, 615 F.2d 1279 (10th Cir.1980); United States v. Leonard, 630 F.2d 789 (10th Cir.1980); Unite......
-
State v. Prober
...v. Edwards, 577 F.2d 883, 894 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 968, 99 S.Ct. 458, 58 L.Ed.2d 427; United States v. Martin, 566 F.2d 1143, 1145 (10th Cir. 1977); People v. Meeks, 194 Colo. 214, 570 P.2d 835, 838 (1977); Schaum v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 498, 211 S.E.2d 73, 74-7......
-
State v. Fortune
...(1981); United States v. Prescott, 599 F.2d 103 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Scott, 665 F.2d 874 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. Martin, 566 F.2d 1143 (10th Cir.1977); Schwasta v. United States, 392 A.2d 1071 (D.C.1978); Martasin v. State, 155 Ga.App. 396, 271 S.E.2d 2 (1980); People v......