―It is urged that the arrest followed, and did not precede, the search. In our opinion it is immaterial whether the arrest preceded or followed the search, if such acts were practically simultaneous, and if, in fact, the defendant was guilty of committing a crime in the presence of the officers for which he might have been arrested. In many instances it is dangerous for an officer to go through the formality of stating that the accused is under arrest, and the law does not require him to do so. It is oftentimes safer to act first and talk afterward.‖
How later courts described this case
- ―It is urged that the arrest followed, and did not precede, the search. In our opinion it is immaterial whether the arrest preceded or followed the search, if such acts were practically simultaneous, and if, in fact, the defendant was guilty of committing a crime in the presence of the officers for which he might have been arrested. In many instances it is dangerous for an officer to go through the formality of stating that the accused is under arrest, and the law does not require him to do so. It is oftentimes safer to act first and talk afterward.‖
- because officers searched defendant without an arrest or search warrant, the justification for the search must be found in their right to arrest defendant for a crime committed or attempted to be committed in their presence
- discussing constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures as rooted in common law protection for sanctity of home
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*244
BROWN, J.,
Dissenting in Part, Concurring in Part.—In the main I am in accord with the law as laid down by Mr. Justice Belt in the well-prepared majority opinion, bnt I cannot concur in the holding that the defendant was lawfully arrested prior to the forcible search of his person, or that such search and subsequent arrest were contemporaneous.