Case Title: State v. Childs

Citation: 110 Ariz. 389, 519 P.2d 854

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1974-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
110 Ariz. 389 (1974) 519 P.2d 854 STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Thomas Denzie CHILDS, Appellee. No. 2683. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. March 8, 1974. *390 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Dennis DeConcini, Pima Co. Atty., by Walter Weber, Deputy Co. Atty., Tucson, for appellant. Leon Thikoll, Tucson, for appellee. STRUCKMEYER, Justice. This is an appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1712(7) by the State of Arizona from the ruling of the Superior Court of Pima County granting a motion to suppress. The motion to suppress was made by appellee, Thomas Denzle Childs, in a prosecution for the unlawful transportation of marijuana. It was presented to the court below on stipulated facts as follows: On these facts, we think the motion to suppress was improperly granted. There is, of course, no search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment where the objects are within the plain view of a police officer who has the right to be in the position to view the objects and it cannot be an unreasonable search if the officer observes whatever is in plain sight. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S. Ct. 1623, 10 L. Ed. 2d 726 (1963). Nor is so much of a vehicle's interior as is in the plain view of an onlooker protected by the Fourth Amendment from searching eyes. United States v. Polk (5th Cir.1970), 433 F.2d 644. Objects which can be seen are not the products of an unreasonable search and are subject to seizure and may be introduced into evidence. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S. Ct. 992, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1968); State v. Turner, 101 Ariz. 85, 416 P.2d 409 (1966); Ruiz v. State, 32 Ariz. 121, 256 P. 362 (1927). In Ruiz v. State, the officers looked inside an open car and saw a keg of whiskey. We said: Since we have concluded that there was no unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the only possible additional question is whether there has been an unreasonable seizure either of the jeep or its contents. There may be, of course, a search without a seizure or a seizure without a search. United States v. McDonnell (D.C.Neb., 1970), 315 F. Supp. 152. Here, on the stipulated facts, it was clear beyond any reasonable doubt to those officers present at the time of the seizure that the appellee in transporting marijuana in violation of Arizona law, A.R.S. § 36-1002.07, was transporting contraband. Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214, 76 S. Ct. 292, 100 L. Ed. 233 (1956). As contraband, the marijuana was subject to seizure then at the scene of the crashed vehicle or any time thereafter at the convenience of the law enforcement officers. "The seizure of contraband has been justified on the ground that the suspect has not even a bare possessory right to contraband." Fortas, concurring in Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 311, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 1652, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782, 794 (1967). It is also "well established that every sovereign state has jurisdiction to take charge of apparently abandoned or unclaimed property." Commonwealth v. Dollar Savings Bank, 259 Pa. 138, 102 A. 569, 1 A.L.R. 1048 (1917). Indeed, there is express statutory authority for the seizure of appellee's jeep. By A.R.S. § 28-1401.01, any law enforcement officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a vehicle has been abandoned may remove such vehicle from any street, highway or public property. The flight of the appellee after the crash of the jeep is alone sufficient to establish its apparent abandonment and justifies the officers, as agents of the State, in taking charge of the jeep and contents immediately. Moreover, by A.R.S. § 36-1042, any peace officer making or attempting to make an arrest for violation of Arizona's Uniform Narcotic Drug Act shall seize the vehicle used to transport unlawfully a narcotic drug or in which a narcotic drug is *392 unlawfully kept, deposited or concealed, or unlawfully possessed and the vehicle shall be held as evidence until its forfeiture is completed pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-1046. We think, as did the courts in both United States v. Edwards (5th Cir., 1971), 441 F.2d 749, and Whitlock v. State, 124 Ga. App. 599, 185 S.E.2d 90 (1971), that the appellee's right to Fourth Amendment protection came to an end when he abandoned his vehicle and fled on foot. At this point, as the Edwards case said, "defendant could have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to his automobile." 441 F.2d supra at 751. The Fifth Circuit Court further said: For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the motion to suppress made by appellee, Thomas Denzle Childs, was erroneously granted. The order is vacated and set aside. HAYS, C.J., CAMERON, V.C.J., and LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.