United States v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 24 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-4-75-2.,CR-4-75-2. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. George Thomas ANDERSON, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Hugh J. Moore, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Burton E. Strubhar, Pensacola, Fla., for defendant.
This is a prosecution for the unlawful possession of the defendant Mr. Anderson of a controlled substance, with the intent to distribute and dispense the same. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1) (B). It is charged that Mr. Anderson so possessed with such intent about 700 lysergic acid diethylamide tablets.
Such tablets were taken from the glove compartment of Mr. Anderson's automobile by a trooper of the highway patrol, Tennessee department of safety. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence of this contraband, on the ground that it was seized in an unconstitutional search. Constitution, Fourth Amendment. He moved also to suppress evidence of incriminatory statements made at the Bedford County, Tennessee jail while he was in the custody of arresting officers, on the ground that such statements were made in violation of his right to the assistance of counsel, Constitution, Sixth Amendment. The Court received evidence on these issues on July 21, 1975, sustained the motions, and released the defendant from custody.
The evidence reflected that about 7:00 o'clock, a. m., July 31, 1974, Troopers Roland D. Finchum and John H. Glassmeyer were traveling northwardly in a patrol car on U. S. highway route no. 231, less than a mile from the city limits of Shelbyville, Tennessee. They saw approaching them from the opposite direction a TR 6 automobile with no license plate on its front. At that time, it was unlawful in Tennessee for a vehicle to be operated without license plates on both the front and the rear ends of motor vehicles. Suspecting that such vehicle was in violation of such statute, Trooper Finchum turned the patrol car around and followed the smaller vehicle. As he neared such automobile, he observed a Florida license plate on its rear and recognized that only one license plate is required by law in that state.
These troopers were assigned to duty in Shelbyville. Principally because of the activity there year-round in connection with the National Walking Horse Celebration, many out-of-state vehicles appear. In some instances, new residents, aware of the foregoing fact, fail to transfer the registration of their out-of-state vehicles seasonably to Tennessee, and these troopers undertake to enforce that law. Suspecting that this vehicle might fall into that category, even after being satisfied concerning their suspicion regarding the single license plate, the troopers determined to check the registration of the vehicle ahead.
An officer of the Tennessee department of safety is empowered to demand the exhibition by a person operating a motor vehicle within this state of an operator's or chauffeur's license. T.C.A. § 59-709. As the Tennessee Supreme Court has stated:
Robertson v. State (1947), 184 Tenn. 277, 198 S.W.2d 633, 6363.
Another statute of the state of Tennessee, T.C.A. § 59-408, empowers an officer of the Tennessee department of safety to demand that the driver of a motor vehicle within this state display to him a certificate of vehicle registration. Read in para materia with T.C.A. § 59-709, this latter statute's language does not appear to contemplate that a highway patrolman of the state may stop a car and demand to see its certificate of vehicle registration where the operator thereof has not violated an ordinance or law or is not so doing at the time. It is clear, however, that these troopers were authorized to check Mr. Anderson's drivers' license.
The officers illuminated the flashing blue lights atop their patrol car and sounded its siren. Mr. Anderson stopped immediately. To this point, except for the single license plate, the officers had witnessed no criminal activity or suspicious conduct on the part of the defendant. Neither did they have any information that Mr. Anderson had violated any law.
After the Anderson automobile stopped, Mr. Finchum went to its driver's side and Mr. Glassmeyer to its passenger's side. Trooper Finchum demanded that Mr. Anderson produce and display his driver's license. Mr. Anderson displayed to the officer an ostensibly valid Florida driver's license. Trooper Finchum then demanded of Mr. Anderson proof of registration of the vehicle he had been operating.
It is undisputed that Florida law does not require that registration documents be kept in an automobile, and Mr. Anderson was not certain whether he had such with him or not. While he was searching unsuccessfully therefor, Trooper Finchum moved to the front of the Anderson vehicle. Through its windshield he could see the ashtray atop the dashboard of the vehicle, and therein, in plain view, he could see * * *"
At this point in the confrontation, Trooper Finchum required Mr. Anderson to alight from his automobile and stand at its rear at the front of the patrol car. He placed him formally under arrest for possessing a controlled substance. The two troopers then conducted a general exploratory search of the interior of the automobile. Trooper Finchum testified the officers were "* * * looking for nothing in particular. * * *" He discovered in the process of such search a whole marijuana cigarette, and Trooper Glassmeyer opened the glove compartment of the vehicle. In such compartment, Trooper Glassmeyer discovered a hand calculator in a zippered bag. He unzipped this bag, discovered therein and seized, a small plastic package of tablets, which afterward proved to be lysergic acid diethylamide.
Returning with the seized articles to Mr. Anderson, Trooper Finchum advised him of his rights to silence and to the assistance of counsel as well as his right, if indigent, to the appointment of counsel. He stated he understood. This warning went no farther. Mr. Anderson was thereupon transported to jail. There, he was reminded (to the same limited extent) of his rights, which he stated he understood. Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Skea
...to interpreting the unreasonable search provision of New Hampshire's State constitution (id. 471 A.2d at 353). United States v. Anderson, 401 F.Supp. 996, 1000 (E.D.Tenn.1975), which struck down a search in these circumstances, seems contrary to the weight of authority. In this case the off......
-
Caplan v. State
...may not contain contraband, is not enough to create probable cause without some other element being present. E.g., United States v. Anderson, 401 F.Supp. 996 (E.D.Tenn.1975); Thomas v. Superior Court for County of San Joaquin, 22 Cal.App.3d 972, 99 Cal.Rptr. 647 (1972); People v. Wright, 80......
-
State v. Matlock
...United States v. Barron, 472 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 413 U.S. 920, 93 S.Ct. 3063, 37 L.Ed.2d 1041; United States v. Anderson, 401 F.Supp. 996 (E.D.Tenn.1975); State v. Smith, supra; State v. Helmka, 86 Wash.2d 91, 93, 542 P.2d 115 (1975); State v. Compton, 13 Wash.App. 863, ......
-
Brown v. Com.
...This requirement is consistent with that of many other jurisdictions that have considered the issue. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 401 F.Supp. 996, 1000 (E.D.Tenn.1975) (officer did not have probable cause to arrest upon observing a "`home-made looking' cigarette in the ashtray" of ......