Case Name: Harvey R. HOWELL v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1974-03-25
Citations: 300 So. 2d 774
Docket Number: No. 47752
Parties: Harvey R. HOWELL v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: GILLESPIE, C. J., and SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 300
Pages: 774–782

Head Matter:
Harvey R. HOWELL v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 47752.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
March 25, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1974.
Alfred Lee Felder, Pascagoula, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by John C. Underwood, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Opinion:
ROBERTSON, Justice:
Harvey Ray Howell was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the unlawful possession of amphetamines. He was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the Mississippi State Penitentiary.
The only assignment of error was that the trial court erred in overruling defendant's motion to suppress the evidence.
Deputy Sheriff Alexander was on patrol at 2:25 A.M. on August 7, 1972, when he noticed a white van parked in front of Sherman's Grocery in Escatawpa. Alexander noticed that the driver was slumped over the steering wheel. He investigated and roused the driver sufficiently to get him out of the van. Howell appeared to be drunk or under the influence of drugs, so Alexander assisted him to his patrol car and put him on the back seat.
In getting Howell out of the van, Alexander noticed a pistol in a holster on the right front floorboard of the van. He went back to pick up the pistol and, when he opened the front door on the passenger's side, he noticed in a shallow offset in the dashboard two cellophane bags containing white tablets. Alexander turned these over to the narcotics officer, who, on analysis, found these small white pills to he amphetamines.
Howell contends that inasmuch as deputy sheriff Alexander did not have an arrest warrant or a search warrant he had no right to retrieve the pistol and take the two cellophane bags into his possession, and have the contents analyzed.
We are of the opinion that the trial court was correct in overruling appellant's motion to suppress, and that Alexander's action, under the circumstances of this case, did not amount to an unreasonable search and seizure. Finding Howell slumped over the steering wheel of the van at 2:25 A.M. was enough to require an investigation to determine the cause. Howell could have been sick or injured, could have suffered a heart attack; he could have been drunk or under the influence of drugs; or he could have been engaged in criminal activity. It was the sheriff's duty to keep an incapacitated person from driving a car on a public road and endangering the lives of others. So it was reasonable for Alexander to place him in the patrol car where he could not hurt himself or others.
Having noticed the pistol on the right front floorboard, it was reasonable for Alexander to retrieve the pistol if for no other reason than to keep it from being stolen while the van was unattended. When Alexander noticed the two cellophane bags in the open recess next to the glove compartment, he acted reasonably in taking these bags together with their contents into his possession.
This Court has consistently held that the "eye cannot trespass". Wilson v. State, 186 So.2d 208 (1966); Powell v. State, 184 So.2d 866 (Miss.1966); Corn v. State, 250 Miss. 157, 164 So.2d 777 (1964); Bone v. State, 207 Miss. 868, 43 So.2d 571 (1949).
The United States Supreme Court stated the "plain view" doctrine in Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968):
"It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence." 390 U. S. at 236, 88 S.Ct. at 993.
Having reached the conclusion that deputy sheriff Alexander had "a right to be in the position to have that view" when he noticed the two cellophane bags, the two bags with their contents were subject to seizure, and could be introduced into evidence when found to contain amphetamines.
The conviction, therefore, is affirmed.
We do think that the two-year sentence is excessive in view of Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated, Section 41-29-139(d)(3) (1973 Supp.), which provides:
"A controlled substance classified in Schedules IIT, IV or V as set out in sections 41-29-117 to 41-29-121, upon conviction may be confined for not more than one (1) year, or fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1000.00), or both." (Emphasis added).
Even though the conviction is affirmed, we must set aside the sentence, and remand for resentencing in accord with the statute.
Conviction affirmed, but sentence set aside, and case remanded for resentencing.
GILLESPIE, C. J., and SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.