Court Opinion

ID: 9847577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:02:34.896518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:21.097985
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
BRETT, Judge.
As indicated in the original opinion this case is clearly distinguishable from the Brinegar- case, 262 P.2d 464, and the cases relied on by the defendant. Here the undisputed record is that the officers did not intend to conduct a search when they were laying in wait but only that they intended to follow and determine where the whiskey was to be put so that they could then seize it in a lawful manner by search warrant. Moreover the record shows that they saw the defendant’s car run the red light, driving at an excessive rate of speed, and the officers were required to reach a speed of between 65 and 70 miles an hour to overtake the defendant and after overtaking them the officers followed the defendant at a speed estimated to be 56 to 57' miles an hour, in a 35 mile speed zone.. During the chase the undisputed record discloses that the officers saw the defendant go off the pavement, pull back on and over and across the center line, forcing a semi-trailer off the road and a little later run off the pavement again. Then it was the sheriff said he put the red light on them and sounded his siren. The defendant Stevens who was driving stopped and the sheriff arrested him for running a stopv light and reckless driving. To this point the foregoing infractions constituted violations of the city ordinances. The sheriff swore positively he would not have arrested the defendants had they not violated the city ordinances. To this point this case came within the principles of the Brine-gar case, supra.
The sheriff further swore positively that: he ordered Stevens out of the automobile and discovered from his breath and staggering that he was drunk. The record, shows the defendant admitted that he had been drinking. At that time the sheriff said he informed the defendant he was. arrested for drunk driving. Then the sheriff was entitled to search for the means by which the offense was committed, intoxicating liquor. The search disclosed a. partly filled bottle and the other large-quantity in the turtle back of the car. The defendant offered no proof in his own defense. The record stands uncontradicted-*409We are of the opinion that the officers conducted themselves in a manner according to law and had they not so demeaned themselves in this case they would have been guilty of dereliction of duty.
POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.