Court Opinion

ID: 9574422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:04:47.697592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:32.504656
License: Public Domain

Thompson, C. J.,
dissenting:
The conviction of Kinna for the unlawful possession of narcotics should not be allowed to stand since it rests upon evidence secured in violation of the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Kinna was arrested without a warrant at an abandoned schoolhouse where he had been living. The arrest was for vagrancy as defined by Las Vegas City Ordinance ch. 1, § 6-1-39 (f).1 The incidental seizure of marijuana which followed was constitutionally permissible if the arrest was valid; otherwise, the seizure exceeded Fourth Amendment commands.
A peace officer may arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed in his presence. NRS 171.235. Kinna was not a vagrant when arrested unless he was lodging in the abandoned schoolhouse without the permission of the owner. Lack of permission is the essence of the crime. The record shows that the arresting officer did not inquire whether Kinna had permission of the owner to be there. Lack of permission may not be established by inference, but must be known to the arresting officer as a precondition of his authority to arrest for a violation of the ordinance. A misdemeanor is not committed in the presence of an officer unless the acts constituting the offense are known to him through his own senses. Elrod v. Moss, 278 F. 123 (4 Cir. 1921); State v. Duren, 123 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1963); Venable v. State, 362 S.W.2d 222 (Tenn. 1962); Smith v. Hubbard, 91 N.W.2d 756 (Minn. 1958); State v. Pluth, 195 N.W. 789 (Minn. 1923); Hughes v. State, 238 S.W. 588 (Tenn. 1922). Although a person may actually be committing a criminal offense, it is not committed in the presence of an officer if the officer does not know it. State v. Pluth, supra. In the case at hand the arrest was not shown to be valid and there exists no basis upon which to justify the *649incidental seizure of marijuana. The reception of the marijuana as evidence during trial was, therefore, impermissible.
Respectfully, I dissent.

 That section of the ordinance provides that a vagrant is “Every person who lodges in any barn, shed, shops, outhouse, or place other than that kept for lodging purposes, without the permission of the owner or persons entitled to the possession thereof.”