*1 501 jurisdiction another court attach there way jurisdiction can in no of a affect court independent contempt separate which a criminal Denny Brady v. State proceeding pending. ex inf. 321;
(1932), 682, 706-07, 203 182 Ind. N. E.
Baugher Hall, Receiver, al. etc. (1958), et 238 Ind. Cf.,
170, 175, 591, 593; Gilmour v. N. E. 147 2d Ind. Judgment affirmed.
Myers, Achor, JJ., Landis and concur.
Jackson, J., C. concurs result. Reported in 187 N. 2d 565. E. Note. —
Knotts v. State of Indiana. 30,172. February 12, Filed [No. 1963.] *2 Samper, Indianapolis, appellant. Ferdinand General, L. Attorney Donald Steers, Edwin K. Attorney General, Adams, Deputy appellee. appeal from a con- J. —This is Arterburn, larceny by by shoplifting the crime of viction of Phyllis defendant, Jean Charles William Knotts. below, Terry, appealing. defendant 10-3026, appellant which Burns’ §§10-3025 charged, read as follows: was person “Any takes, who with felonious intent any goods away steals or carries or offered for sale displayed by any mercantile establishment guilty shall deemed of the criminal offense of larceny by shoplifting.” 1959, 194, §2, Acts ch. p. 441, Supp. Burns’ goods “The concealment said and the re- of. moval of said lishment from said estab- mercantile charged by persons shall the. or. prima constitute facie evidence of a felonious in- take, carry away, §3, p. goods.” steal tent said 194, 441, being §10-3026, Acts Burns’ 1962 ch. Supp.
In a motion to motion-to judgment contends charging
and the affidavit are offense defective allegation ownership because as to property taken. The reads follows: REMEMBERED, That, day “BE IT on this me,
before ......1. .PHILLIP L. BAYT ...... Prosecuting Attorney of the Nineteenth Judicial came..........¡....DENNIS Circuit, personally being duly. sworn, HICKEY ...... who ....... *3 upon LIAM says oath his WIL- that...... CHARLES AND ....... KNOTTS .PHYLLIS JEAN TERRY ....... .............. day on or the 14th about of........DECEMBER County A.D. ..... at .and in of ....... Indiana, Marion in the State of did. then and there
unlawfully intent, take, and with felonious steal carry away goods, (1) (3) to-wit : One three piece'set Pajamas, of Chic Shortie thén and there ____ Eight Ninety of the value of Five and ($5.98) Dollars, (1) McGregor Hundredths One Sport Shirt, then Man’s and there of value Dollars; ($5.00) (6) of Five Stretch Six ......pair of Socks, then of and there the vale of One ($1.00) per pair, (6) Dollar six. pair said of being Stretch Socks of the total- of value Six Dollars; .($6„.00) packages (3) Three of Trim-Fit. Tights then Cable and' of Two valúe ' ninety Eights ($2.9'8) ...... and hundredths per packáge, packages (3) Dollars Trim-Fit Cable said three Tights being total value of Eight Ninety-Four ($8.94). and. Dol- Hundredths lars, being said merchandise of the total value of Ninety-Two Hundredths Twenty and Five Dollars, displayed ($25.92) offered for sale or Corpora- APPAREL, INC. a by PACKAGED PAUL tion, a merchantile establishment D/B/A STORES, ... con- then and there HARRIS trary case in such the form statute against peace provided, and made and dignity of of Indiana. the State Mickey Wayne Stalcup Dennis L. /s/ Deputy /s/ DENNIS Prosecuting Attorney MICKEY Nineteenth Judicial Circuit. me, this...... and sworn before
Subscribed A.D. day 16th ...... on DECEMBER ....... 1959 .............
PHILLIP L. BAYT......... Prosecuting Attorney Circuit” Nineteenth Judicial exist, In Indiana common-law crimes legislature necessary fixes elements any statutory Repl. Burns’ crime. Although fixing larceny has a Indiana statute ownership property under which the must legislature alleged proved, it seems offense com and created defined another “shoplifting.” monly known Under that statu ownership, alleging offense, proving tory instead of requirement with whoever contains a away any goods . . . offered “felonious intent carries displayed by any mercantile establishment” for sale or alleged guilty of the offense. affidavit here shall be question time were “carried displayed by par away” were “offered sale” *4 Inc., “Packaged Corporation, Apparel, person, ticular “shoplifting” Under the establishment.” mercantile allege prove necessary the to it statute away” or “carried property was taken whom the from sale, displayed offered it one who the was regardless ownership. appears the This to be objective “shoplifting” primary distinction and of the allegation point statute. The affidavit on this sufficiently statute, requirements meets the of the proof necessary as did the It trial. is not allege ownership “shoplifting” under statute defining since require the statute crime does not defining proof required larceny. McAdams 226 Ind.
In the above where the arose as burglary whether or not common-law definition of statute, used should be or fixed in the 409) (p. court stated : burglary “... we hold here statute crime, generic involved defines the or not
general terms, definitely particularly, but necessary proper and it is not or look to the necessary common law for additional elements has, legislature constitute the crime which the may presume, deliberately we omitted.” ruling court did err its trial on motion to on in arrest motion judgment.
The evidence in this case shows that two police officers held certificates authority They under Burns’ were §48-6312. paid by
hired and the mercantile establishment and pay city. served from Apparently without their City Indianapolis. was limited to the A motion suppress was made to the evidence which they arresting obtained because first, there was no evidence that made the jurisdiction, namely, City within their Indianapolis; secondly, was no evidence *5 legal they had .they and that made a
that appellant; the any- authority and search to arrest to State shows the The. evidence favorable most ap- police saw the officers that these two pellant several items take and his co-defendant clothing named the store the from counter purse on and items in the hide the and ap- They the appellant. observed the. pellant through removed one-way mirror. After he hidden them goods and had from counter the store person, out of on he then walked his goods. police any The paying without co-defendant appellant and his after the ran officers they caught lot, were parking where them took then placed The officer under arrest. where, a room into the store to them back removed request, officer’s Indianapolis regular police of- pockets. A from his ficer was then called. special police had officers contention that therefore, and, make an arrest that by they them when evidence obtained would be
seized defendants not admissible They be sustained. were commissioned cannot authority of Burns’ under §48-6312. arguendo However, were if we assume private enforcement merely law individuals officers, any private then it follows individual upon testify any may he found what search might although seizure, privately he be liable making search, trespass for assault mistaken. if gives protection Fourth “The- ..Amendment against seizures, searches and and as unlawful previous cases, protection ap- its in the shown governmental origin action.
plies
Its
history clearly show
it ... was not intended
governmental
a limitation
other than
agencies.
petitioner
... We
assume that
right
unquestionable
against
redress
those
illegally
wrongfully
private
who
property
his
took
dis
circumstances
herein
closed,
with such
but
remedies we are not now
concerned.” Burdeau McDowell
256 U. S.
574, 576,
S. Ct.
at his to make an even deputized a such has not been a gives private officer. common law The right felony individual where a arrest presence been committed within his and observation.
Doering (1874), 56; v. 49 State Ind. Burns v. State (1922), 427, 857; E., 192 136 Ind. N. E. 3 I. L. Recognizance §5, p. Arrest and defining penalty
The statute “shoplifting” clearly regardless felony, makes offense a taken,
the value of since the punishment imprisonment is state prison for not less than one [1] nor more than five [5] years. Acts 1959, ch. 194, §4, p. 441, being §10-3027, Supp.; v. The Burns’ 1962 State Hicks (1898), 27; 293, 1 Ewbanks, 150 Ind. 50 N. E. Indiana §2, 1956). p. (3d2 Criminal Law ed. suppressing
The law with reference to evidence upon applicable obtained search seizure only is law enforcement who have violated obtaining the law in evidence. There is no made contention if these arrest, any had violated searching law in the defendants their arrest. may officer
After lawful search arrested, individual' and the evidence obtained DeLong the trial. clearly admissible search is 22; 302, Arthur (1929), 168 N. E. 201 Ind.
v. State 698; 493, E. (1949), 86 N. Sisk Ind. 2d 627. 232 Ind. v. State judgment presented. find error We court affirmed. trial Achor, JJ.,
Myers, Landis concur. opinion. Jackson, J., with C. dissents Dissenting Opinion disagree Jackson, majority opinion C. J. —I with the my opinion appellants’ mo- herein for the reason that in sustained. should have been tion prosecution was this The statute under which 194, 441, instituted, §2, p. Acts ch. Supp., Bums’ 1962 Cum. as to silent “goods dis- for sale or whether or not offered lawfully any played by are mercantile establishment” possession establishment. *7 Reported Note. —
Warren Indiana. 30,038. February 19, Filed [No. 1963.]