Young v. State

BAREFOOT, J.

Defendant Elmer Young was charged in the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county with the *113 crime of illegally transporting intoxicating liquor. A jury was waived, and the defendant was tried before the court, found guilty, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for a period of 30 days, and he has appealed.

For reversal of this judgment it is contended that the court erred in failing to sustain a motion of defendant to suppress the evidence offered for the reason that no search warrant was had by the officer arresting the defendant. It is contended by the state that under the evidence it was not necessary for the officer to have a search warrant for the reason that a crime was committed in his presence, and that the arrest was justifiable without the necessity of having a search warrant.

The evidence revealed the defendant was arrested on East Twenty-Third street in Oklahoma City on the 8th day of April, 1938. On that date a snowstorm was raging, and there were heavy drifts of snow on Twenty-Third street. A truck had stuck in a snowbank, and many cars had been stopped, among them the automobile of the defendant. He, with a number of other persons, got out of his car and went up to where the truck was stuck and assisted them in pushing, it through the snowbank. A short distance behind the defendant’s car was the automobile of the sheriff of Oklahoma county and several of his deputies who also got out of their car and started to where the truck Avas stuck. They passed the car of defendant, and through the window of the car saw a number of packages of whisky Avrapped in brown paper lying on the front seat of the automobile, and the back seat was piled almost tO‘ the top of the car. The cushion had been removed. When defendant returned to the car he was arrested and the whisky was taken possession of by the of *114 ficers. Defendant told them be bad sold tbe liquor to a Mr. Morgan and was delivering tbe same.

On tbe motion to suppress tbe evidence, tbe defendant testified, but did not take the witness stand in tbe trial of tbe case before tbe court. Tbe officers testified to tbe facts as above stated.

In many recent decisions of this court we have held, under similar circumstances that an officer was justified in searching tbe automobile of a defendant without tbe necessity of a search warrant where be could observe tbe liquor from tbe windows of tbe car. The officers were upon the public highway where they bad a right to be. They saw the car of tbe defendant with tbe packages of whisky therein. Their experience as officers was such as. caused them to know it was whisky.

It was revealed that there was in tbe car nine quarts, 96 half-pints, and 276 pints of assorted liquor. Tbe evidence was certain that it was being illegally conveyed by tbe defendant. Tbe punishment assessed by tbe court was tbe minimum provided by law. He has no. cause to. complain, and tbe court did not err in overruling bis motion to suppress. Nott v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 432 , 107 P. 2d 366 ; Barfield v. State, 68 Okla. Cr. 455 , 99 P. 2d 544 ; Matthews v. State, 67 Okla. Cr. 203 , 93 P. 2d 549 ; McAfee v. State, 65 Okla. Cr. 65 , 82 P. 2d 1006 ; Boardwine v. State, 64 Okla. Cr. 49 , 76 P. 2d 1081 ; Arnold v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 203 , 105 P. 2d 556 ; Brumley v. State, 69 Okla. Cr. 122 , 100 P. 2d 465 ; Skinner v. State, 65 Okla. Cr. 371 , 87 P. 2d 341 .

Tbe judgment of tbe court of common pleas of Oklahoma county is therefore affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.