# York v. State

> Alabama Court of Appeals · December 15, 1964 · 43 Ala. App. 54

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6527062

## Case

- **Full name:** Otto Clarence YORK v. STATE
- **Court:** Alabama Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 15, 1964
- **Citations:** 43 Ala. App. 54; 179 So. 2d 330
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Cates
- **Judges:** Cates
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6527062

## Opinion text

On Rehearing
CATES, Judge.
The Attorney General cites us to: Feguer v. United States, 8 Cir., 302 F.2d 214 , Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 , Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 , 44 S.Ct. 445 , 68 L.Ed. 898 , and Newingham v. United States, 3 Cir., 4 F.2d 490 .
Feguer v. United States, supra, 302 F.2d at 247 , gives grounds for searching the car stolen from the victim of Feguer’s kidnapping. Beyond Feguer’s and York’s driving cars, all correspondence between the cases ends.
The searching of the room Feguer had formerly rented in Dubuque has no application to a hypothetical search which might have been made of York’s car while it was off the road m the plum thicket. The cases cited by the Eighth Circuit (e. g., Abel, supra, and Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 ) not only, are not concerned with vehicles but are modified by Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 486 , 84 S.Ct. 889 , 11 L.Ed.2d 856 . See also Anno. 86 A.L.R.2d 984 .
*57 Hester v. United States, supra, involved an officer picking up a thrown away jug still holding about a quart of whiskey. Hester had discarded the jug' — probably hoping to break it — while running through an open field. Holmes, J., held this act “was no seizure in the sense of the law.”
Newingham v. United States, supra, concerned use of papers in evidence. Some had been taken from a desk. The court found it “clear that the defendants had abandoned them.”
The mere finding of an automobile stalled alongside or near a road is not alone sufficient to say that the owner has abandoned it. Beyond this we need not conjecture, since here the sheriff made his seizure not at the plum thicket but in the shadow of the courthouse.
Application overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6527062. Public record. Not legal advice.