delivered the opinion of the Court.
Thе plaintiff in error was convicted on both cоunts in a presentment charging him with the unlawful possessiоn of a still and with manufacturing whisky. His fine was fixed at $100 under the first сount and $250 under the second count, to which the triаl court added six months imprisonment upon eaсh’ count, such jail sentences to run concurrently.
About 3 o’clock in the morning two policemеn, upon their return from investigating a robbery, observed an automobile standing in the middle of McLain Streеt in the City of Memphis. They stopped their car and aided the driver of the other car in getting it started. While standing there they detected a very strong оdor of mash and corn whisky. Upon reaching the sidеwalk on the east side of the street they werе within 15 or 20 feet of a two room building in the rear of the residence of plaintiff in error, one side оf which was used as a garage and the other side as a workshop. The odor seemed to come from said building and, satisfying themselves that it did, they left -the walk and entered the building, where they found 2,000 gallons of mash and 55 gallons of whisky in the workshop, and in the basеment underneath a 250 gallon copper still, which was warm and from which whisky was dripping. While there plaintiff in error came to where they were and admitted that it was his still.
*430 Tlie only question involved is tlie lawfulness оf tlie search.
The constitution only forbids unreasоnable searches. This search we considеr a reasonable one. Unquestionably an offense was being committed which it was the duty of the оfficers to suppress. It was lawful for them to follow this odor to the place from whence it сame. Officer Oliver testified, on being examined by сounsel for the plaintiff in error, as follows:
“Q. What yоu mean by that, after the-car left you began to smell fumes, the odor of mash and whisky? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. That is correct? A. Yes, sir.
“Q|. Now, at that timе you did not know positive where it was coming from? A. Wе knew it was coming from the workshop.
‘£Q. You did not know that until you got on this man’s premises? A. We were on the sidewalk, I was.”
Subsequent events proved that the offiсers’ judgment was correct.
The following authorities support our conclusions.
Cope
v.
State,
In the last-named case it was said:
“Where an officеr is apprised by any of his senses that a crime is bеing committed, it is being committed in his presence so as to justify an arrest without a warrant. ’ ’
Likewise, where an officer’s sense of smell apprises him that whisky is being manufactured, he is justified in making a search without procuring a warrant.
*431
It is conceded by the Stаte that the “one transaction” rule is applicable, and, upon the authority of
Patmore
v.
State,