Case Name: E. Dittberner et al. v. The State
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1927-02-26
Citations: 155 Tenn. 102
Docket Number: 
Parties: E. Dittberner et al. v. The State. *
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 102–109

Head Matter:
E. Dittberner et al. v. The State. *
(Nashville.
December Term, 1926.)
Opinion filed February 26, 1927.
Clarence Friedman, Bbyan & Bbode and Galloway & Weinstein, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney-General for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Mb. Justice Chambliss
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a conviction for transporting more than a gallon of intoxicating liquor. It is not denied that when arrested plaintiff in error was in charge of an automobile in which was being transported along the streets of Memphis a large quantity of liquor. The insistence is that the evidence of the officer who made the arrest was obtained through an illegal seizure and search. The question turns upon the reasonableness of the grounds which the arresting officer had. It appears that while driving along the speedway in Memphis at night, while not on active duty, the attention of the officer was attracted to a car which passed him bearing a foreign State license plate, very dusty, the springs of which had been reenforced in a manner which he had formerly observed nsed on cars employed in the transportation of liquor. He also observed that despite this reenforeement of the springs, the car, as he followed it along the speedway, gave indications of being heavily loaded in the rear. It may be conceded that, while this cine was insufficient to warrant the arrest, it justified this officer in giving-some attention to the car and its occupants, which he proceeded to do, following slowly. Under these circumstances, the driver of the car took the south fork of the speedway at the point where the ordinance requires cars going north and south to take the respective sides of the driveway. After driving a short distance on the wrong-side of the speedway, the suspected car was stopped and its lights put out. This circumstance confirmed, as it well might have done, the suspicions of the officer, it becoming quite apparent that these parties desired to escape, his observation. Furthermore, the testimony shows that the suspected car when followed by the officer's car was driven at different speeds, — slowing-.down and then quickening up; also was circled about on unpaved streets — all suggestive of a purpose to elude a possible pursuit and indicating- guilt. A little later, when the car driven by the plaintiff in error and conveying two companions was brought to a stop at a drug store, the officer arrested the plaintiff in error and he soon thereafter admitted his guilt, and, thereafter, upon a search of the car, some fifteen cases of whiskey were found therein, each case containing twelve quarts.
As heretofore held by this court, cases of this class turn largely upon the peculiar facts of each case. Of course, officers are not justified in holding up automobiles upon mere suspicion unsupported by plausible grounds, but the facts of this casé tend very strongly to support the insistence of the State and the finding of the trial judgo that reasonable grounds existed for the action taken by the arresting officer. The facts are much stronger than those recited in the recently decided case from the Fifth U. S. Circuit, relied on by counsel. Having been justifiably arrested, the search was warranted, even though the plaintiff in error had made no admissions.
The assignments are overruled and the judgment affirmed.