State of Alabama v. Thomas L. McClure, alias

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/28/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-08-1730 S t a t e o f Alabama v. Thomas Appeal WINDOM, The Court's L. M c C l u r e from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CC-09-668) Court Judge. State July o f Alabama 6, 2009, motion t o suppress stop. On A p r i l appeals order t h e Montgomery granting a l l evidence Thomas obtained 3, 2009, t h e Montgomery L. during County Circuit McClure's a traffic grand jury CR-08-1730 issued an i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g McClure with one count of p o s s e s s i o n o f a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e , a v i o l a t i o n o f 13A-122 1 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975; one count of p o s s e s s i o n of drug p a r a p h e r n a l i a , a v i o l a t i o n o f § 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 6 0 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975; and one count personal use, of p o s s e s s i o n of a violation of § marijuana f o r other 13A-12-213(a)(1), than A l a . Code 1975. On A p r i l 29, 2009, M c C l u r e f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , i n w h i c h he a r g u e d t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be s u p p r e s s e d because such e v i d e n c e was 2009, t h e c i r c u i t McClure's On July 6, c o n d u c t e d an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on of that h e a r i n g , the c i r c u i t court granted McClure's motion. On July 2009, the to obtained. conclusion 8, motion court illegally State suppress. of Alabama At the timely filed i t s notice of established during the 30, 10:20 appeal. The following suppression hearing. facts On were October 2008, at p.m., C o r p o r a l J . S . Dunn, an o f f i c e r w i t h t h e C r i m e R e d u c t i o n Team of t h e Montgomery P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t , and h i s p a r t n e r , Agent B.L. B u t l e r , " p a c e d " M c C l u r e d r i v i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 70 m i l e s an hour in a 45-mile-an-hour construction 2 zone on I-85 in CR-08-1730 Montgomery. A f t e r d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t M c C l u r e was e x c e e d i n g t h e s p e e d l i m i t , C o r p o r a l Dunn a c t i v a t e d h i s emergency l i g h t s . t h a t p o i n t , M c C l u r e merged f r o m t h e l e f t lane but d i d not immediately p u l l lane i n t o the over. Instead, At right McClure c o n t i n u e d t o d r i v e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y one h a l f o f a m i l e . After McClure eventually pulled over, Corporal Dunn o b s e r v e d him l e a n over t o the p a s s e n g e r s i d e o f the c a r . the meantime, Corporal McClure r o l l e d Dunn approached McClure's t h e window down o n l y h a l f w a y . car, and Even w i t h the window o n l y h a l f w a y down, C o r p o r a l Dunn d e t e c t e d a really "really, s t r o n g " odor of a i r f r e s h e n e r i n d i c a t i n g t h a t "had j u s t s p r a y e d a whole bunch of a i r f r e s h e n e r . " Corporal nervous. Dunn also observed that In McClure McClure (R. 8, was 9.) really W h i l e s t a n d i n g n e x t t o M c C l u r e ' s c a r , C o r p o r a l Dunn i n f o r m e d M c C l u r e t h a t he was g o i n g t o i s s u e M c C l u r e a w a r n i n g ticket out f o r speeding. C o r p o r a l Dunn t h e n a s k e d M c C l u r e t o g e t o f h i s c a r and s t a n d n e x t t o C o r p o r a l Dunn's c a r w h i l e wrote the t i c k e t . receive (R. 10.) noticed only A l t h o u g h he h a d b e e n i n f o r m e d t h a t he w o u l d a warning, McClure Agent B u t l e r that he McClure remained extremely nervous. t e s t i f i e d that was during sweating profusely. 3 this (R. time, he 75-76.) CR-08-1730 Corporal Dunn also noticed that while he was awaiting the t r a f f i c c i t a t i o n , M c C l u r e was n e r v o u s l y m o v i n g h i s l e g s a r o u n d and s t a r i n g a t h i s c a r , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o C o r p o r a l Dunn, was an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e v e h i c l e c o n t a i n e d c o n t r a b a n d . (R. 10, 13.) After McClure C o r p o r a l Dunn gave M c C l u r e d i d n o t move; Corporal Dunn, he j u s t McClure was a p p e a r e d t o be t o o a f r a i d later, McClure began h i s warning stood there. still t o move. apologizing extremely (R. 13.) citation, According to nervous A few s e c o n d s f o r speeding. (R. 23.) C o r p o r a l Dunn t h e n a s k e d M c C l u r e i f he h a d any g u n s , or marijuana i n h i s c a r . when C o r p o r a l Dunn m e n t i o n e d m a r i j u a n a . Corporal Dunn, when r e s p o n s e was d i f f e r e n t guns a n d c o c a i n e . cocaine, M c C l u r e r e s p o n d e d t h a t he d i d n o t , b u t became more t e n s e a n d n e r v o u s a n d c l i n c h e d to and asked about the c i t a t i o n (R. 14.) According marijuana, McClure's f r o m h i s r e s p o n s e s when a s k e d about N o t i c i n g McClure's r e a c t i o n t o h i s question a b o u t m a r i j u a n a , C o r p o r a l Dunn a s k e d M c C l u r e f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o search the car. he never said M c C l u r e r e s p o n d e d t h a t he was i n a h u r r y , b u t no. Corporal Dunn 4 asked a g a i n i f he could CR-08-1730 search t h e c a r , and McClure a n y t h i n g w r o n g , " b u t he s t i l l responded, "Well, d i d n o t s a y no. I don't do (R. 16.) C o r p o r a l Dunn t h e n a s k e d M c C l u r e " i f t h e r e was any r e a s o n why the [drug] narcotics McClure 15.) if dog would indicate i n his vehicle." asked the presence (R. 14-15, 16.) C o r p o r a l Dunn i f he " r e a l l y of At that any point, had a dog." (R. C o r p o r a l Dunn t h e n t o l d M c C l u r e t h a t " i t w o u l d be b e t t e r [h]e just call[ed] a dog o u t [ t ] h e r e . " C o r p o r a l Dunn was p r e p a r i n g t o c a l l stopped him by s t a t i n g , Don't c a l l a dog. a canine u n i t , " [ n ] o , no, no. You c a n s e a r c h . " (R. 16.) Don't (R. 16-17.) call As McClure a dog. McClure then i n f o r m e d C o r p o r a l Dunn t h a t t h e r e was m a r i j u a n a i n t h e t r u n k of the car. A f t e r McClure c o n s e n t e d t o a s e a r c h and i n f o r m e d C o r p o r a l Dunn t h a t m a r i j u a n a was i n t h e t r u n k , C o r p o r a l Dunn a n d A g e n t Butler searched the c a r . Adderall p i l l , McClure citation upon was they f o u n d m a r i j u a n a , an a c e r a m i c p i p e , and $6,400. was t h e n p l a c e d u n d e r Based Inside, (R. 18.) McClure arrest. these facts, detained after f o r speeding and the c i r c u i t he h a d b e e n that 5 court issued Corporal found that the warning Dunn lacked a CR-08-1730 reasonable citation was to s u s p i c i o n t o d e t a i n and q u e s t i o n M c C l u r e a f t e r was issued. (R. 49-60.) Having i l l e g a l l y d e t a i n e d , the c i r c u i t found t h a t McClure court granted h i s motion suppress. On a p p e a l , t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t M c C l u r e was after the citation detention (1968). was was issued, justified The 1 consented State under also and Terry asserts Initially, the although p r o p r i e t y of dispositive detained citation. The legality of s e a r c h was the v. i f he Ohio, that detained was, 392 the this of U.S. McClure had d i d not itself because, i f the legality of relating vehicle, the i s whether McClure was been issued the i t s e l f ; instead, i t ruled t h e f r u i t o f an i l l e g a l d e t e n t i o n . court court warning c o u r t d i d n o t q u e s t i o n o r r u l e on search rule on the initial 6 legal, stop the that the Presumably the p r o p r i e t y of d e t e n t i o n was the 1 validly arguments McClure's Court he the suppress. State raises search after circuit circuit The appeal. the issue before unlawfully 1 even not to a search of h i s c a r ; t h e r e f o r e , the c i r c u i t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g McClure's motion to to the the i s not the search search at issue was on CR-08-1730 c l e a r l y s u p p o r t e d by p r o b a b l e consent. 2 F u r t h e r , the the legality of the was aware t h a t a b s e n t be i n a p p r o p r i a t e under c a u s e and a r g u a b l y s u p p o r t e d circuit search c o u r t may itself not because the have r u l e d circuit by on court an i l l e g a l d e t e n t i o n , s u p p r e s s i o n w o u l d the inevitable-discoverydoctrine. 3 Before the search of the car, McClure admitted to C o r p o r a l Dunn t h a t t h e r e was m a r i j u a n a i n t h e t r u n k . (R. 17.) M c C l u r e ' s a d m i s s i o n t h a t t h e r e was m a r i j u a n a i n t h e t r u n k o f the c a r p r o v i d e d p r o b a b l e cause j u s t i f y i n g a s e a r c h of the c a r under the automobile e x c e p t i o n to the warrant requirement. See S t a t e v. B l a c k , 987 So. 2d 1177, 1180 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006)(citing Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466-67 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t under the "automobile execution," a v e h i c l e may be s e a r c h e d w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t b a s e d on p r o b a b l e c a u s e a l o n e ) ; Adams v. S t a t e , 815 So. 2d 578, 580 (Ala. 2 0 0 1 ) ( c o n s i d e r i n g an a d m i s s i o n b y a c o d e f e n d a n t i n h o l d i n g t h a t p r o b a b l e cause j u s t i f i e d the s e a r c h of a c a r ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. A r e , 590 F.3d 499, 507 ( 7 t h C i r . 2009) ( h o l d i n g t h a t the defendant's a d m i s s i o n t h a t c o n t r a b a n d was i n h i s bedroom c o n s t i t u t e d p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a w a r r a n t ) ; P e o p l e v. Brown, 24 A.D.3d 884, 886, 806 N.Y.S.2d 262, 264 (2005) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e " d e f e n d a n t ' s a d m i s s i o n o f the presence of a crack p i p e i n the car p r o v i d e d probable c a u s e f o r t h e e n t r y i n t o and s e a r c h o f t h e c a r f o r t h e p i p e under the automobile e x c e p t i o n to the warrant r e q u i r e m e n t " ) . 2 In order f o r i l l e g a l l y obtained "evidence to q u a l i f y f o r admission under [ t h e i n e v i t a b l e - d i s c o v e r y e x c e p t i o n ] t o the [Fourth Amendment] e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e , there must be a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the evidence i n q u e s t i o n would have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d by l a w f u l means, and t h e p r o s e c u t i o n must demonstrate t h a t the l a w f u l means w h i c h made d i s c o v e r y i n e v i t a b l e were b e i n g a c t i v e l y p u r s u e d p r i o r t o t h e o c c u r r e n c e of the i l l e g a l conduct." J e f f e r s o n v. F o u n t a i n , 382 F.3d 1286, 1296 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2004) . H e r e , C o r p o r a l Dunn t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was i n t h e p r o c e s s o f c a l l i n g a c a n i n e u n i t t o p e r f o r m 3 7 CR-08-1730 A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s Court w i l l address o n l y whether the c i r c u i t court erred i n determining detained a f t e r the warning that McClure c i t a t i o n was was unlawfully issued. " T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s de novo a c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n on a motion dispute. 1996); 1999)." t o suppress evidence See S t a t e v . H i l l , when the facts are not i n 690 So. 2d 1 2 0 1 , 1203 ( A l a . S t a t e v. O t w e l l , 733 So. 2d 950, 952 ( A l a . C r i m . App. S t a t e v. White, 28 So. 3 d 827, 829 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v. Skaggs, 903 So. 2d 180, 181 ( A l a . C r i m . App. case, 2004)). I n the instant the relevant facts are a s n i f f t e s t o f t h e c a r when M c C l u r e s t o p p e d h i m , c o n s e n t e d t o t h e s e a r c h , a n d a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e r e was m a r i j u a n a i n t h e trunk. (R. 15-17.) I f t h e d e t e n t i o n a t t h a t p o i n t was l e g a l and no e x c e p t i o n t o t h e w a r r a n t r e q u i r e m e n t a p p l i e d , t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e d r u g e v i d e n c e w o u l d have been d e t e c t e d by t h e c a n i n e u n i t , t h u s p r o v i d i n g p r o b a b l e cause f o r t h e s e a r c h o f t h e c a r . A c c o r d i n g l y , under t h e i n e v i t a b l e - d i s c o v e r y d o c t r i n e , any i l l e g a l i t y i n t h e s e a r c h i t s e l f w o u l d n o t have r e n d e r e d t h e e v i d e n c e i n a d m i s s i b l e . C f . West v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-09-0132, M a r c h 5, 2010] So. 3d , ___ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) ( h o l d i n g t h a t l a w e n f o r c e m e n t h a d p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s e a r c h t h e v e h i c l e b a s e d on t h e c a n i n e ' s i n d i c a t i o n t h a t n a r c o t i c s were p r e s e n t i n t h e v e h i c l e ) ; S t a t e v. Montgomery, 968 So. 2d 543, 552 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006) ("[A]n a l e r t b y a t r a i n e d d r u g - s n i f f i n g d o g p r o v i d e s p r o b a b l e cause t o s e a r c h w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t . " ) . 8 CR-08-1730 uncontested; the t h e r e f o r e , the circuit court's Consequently, the circuit this application Court court's d e c i s i o n de only issue before of the a f f o r d s no ruling and law this to those presumption reviews the Court is facts. i n favor circuit of court's novo. I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e s and s e i z u r e s a r e p e r se u n r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r t h e F o u r t h Amendment u n l e s s State e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t the recognized exception. (Ala. 1985). Ex Exceptions 1) o b j e c t s i n p l a i n v i e w ; incident to a situations; 5) circumstances; pursuant Tucker, to 667 exception, police have activity." App. lawful search parte Hilley, 2) c o n s e n s u a l arrest; probable an Terry v. Ohio, "[a] a 1339, routine 4) hot cause 6) 2d 484 to the warrant and So. or s e i z u r e f a l l s searches; 1343 'reasonable stop So. include: search emergency with exigent frisk (1968). Ex parte Under t h e Terry may of 2d 1141, be prolonged other 1145 "In reviewing reasonable d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , c o u r t s must l o o k a t t h e i f criminal ( A l a . Crim. 2007). 9 488 and 1 suspicion' Camp v. S t a t e , 983 485, detention ( A l a . 1995). traffic within a 3) a p u r s u i t or coupled U.S. 2d requirement investigatory 392 So. the suspicion '"totality CR-08-1730 of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s " ' t o see whether t h e d e t a i n i n g o f f i c e r had a ' " p a r t i c u l a r i z e d and o b j e c t i v e b a s i s " ' f o r s u s p e c t i n g w r o n g d o i n g . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. A r v i z u , 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S . C t . 744, 151 L . E d . 2 d 740 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C o r t e z , 449 U.S. 411, 417-418, 101 S . C t . 690, 66 L . E d . 2 d 621 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ) . ' T h i s p r o c e s s a l l o w s o f f i c e r s t o draw on t h e i r own experience and specialized training to make i n f e r e n c e s from and d e d u c t i o n s about t h e c u m u l a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o them t h a t " m i g h t w e l l e l u d e an u n t r a i n e d p e r s o n . " ' A r v i z u , 534 U.S. a t 273, 122 S.Ct. 744 ( q u o t i n g C o r t e z , 449 U.S. a t 418, 101 S.Ct. 690)." Muse v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-08-0699, Aug. 28, 2009] ___ ( A l a . Crim. traffic App. 2009). I n the context t h e t i m e o f t h e c o n t i n u e d d e t e n t i o n , ] must be 1993) ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ) 2d circumstances continued 88 known ( A l a . Crim. to the d e t e n t i o n s h o u l d be Assuming prolonged, 82, without t h i s Court e s t a b l i s h e d a reasonable case, considered." ( A l a . Crim. App. See a l s o S t a t e v. G r e e n , App. officer 2008) at the (holding time that of the stop was considered). deciding holds as known t o ( q u o t i n g A r n o l d v. S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 145, 149 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) . So. , prolonged [or, i n t h i s S t a t e v. W a s h i n g t o n , 623 So. 2d 392, 395-96 992 of a stop, "the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances, the o f f i c e r a t the i n c e p t i o n of the stop, at So. 3d that the traffic that the f o l l o w i n g circumstances s u s p i c i o n of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y 10 that CR-08-1730 justified the prolonged detention. a c t i v a t e d h i s emergency l i g h t s , p u l l over " (R. 18.) When McClure took Corporal Dunn "a l o n g t i m e t o Once he f i n a l l y p u l l e d h i s v e h i c l e over, McClure leaned over i n t o t h e passenger s i d e o f t h e c a r . Cf. Ex p a r t e Kelley, 870 (recognizing that a legitimately ripen into observes furtive "police after 7 1 1 , 723 officer's probable gestures individual to stop"). So. 2d cause ( A l a . 2003) suspicion where can the o f f i c e r he o r s h e h a s o r d e r e d t h e When C o r p o r a l Dunn a p p r o a c h e d t h e c a r , M c C l u r e r o l l e d t h e window down o n l y h a l f w a y , a n d C o r p o r a l Dunn detected of a i r freshener a "really, really strong" odor i n d i c a t i n g t h a t M c C l u r e "had j u s t s p r a y e d a whole bunch o f a i r freshener." 1171, (R. 8, 9.) See U n i t e d 1178-79 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2000) freshener is a proper analysis); Feeney v. S t a t e , S t a t e s v . West, 219 F . 3 d (holding that the scent of a i r factor in a reasonable-suspicion 208 P.3d 50, 55-56 (Wyo. 2009) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e " s t r o n g o d o r " o f " d r y e r s h e e t s " was a f a c t o r supporting the o f f i c e r ' s c r i m e was o c c u r r i n g ) . extremely nervous reasonable suspicion that a drug When i n i t i a l l y a p p r o a c h e d , M c C l u r e was and sweating profusely, and h i s extreme nervousness d i d not subside during the encounter or a f t e r the 11 CR-08-1730 warning citation was i s s u e d . See Camp, 983 So. 2d a t 1145 ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t extreme nervousness i sa "pertinent factor" i n d e t e r m i n i n g when r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n j u s t i f i e d a p r o l o n g e d t r a f f i c stop). the warning Corporal Finally, citation, Dunn indicator A d d i t i o n a l l y , w h i l e C o r p o r a l Dunn was w r i t i n g McClure testified that was a t h i s c a r , which on h i s e x p e r i e n c e , i n the car. was g i v e n t h e c i t a t i o n , t h e r e as i f f r o z e n w i t h Based was, b a s e d contraband a f t e r McClure stared (R. an 10-11.) he j u s t stood fear. on t h e t o t a l i t y of the circumstances, McClure's b e h a v i o r c r e a t e d a r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t h a t he was c o m m i t t i n g a crime and j u s t i f i e d t h e p r o l o n g e d t r a f f i c s t o p . the circuit court erred i n finding rendered the search McClure's motion and that the prolonged of the car i l l e g a l stop and i n g r a n t i n g t o suppress. For t h e f o r e g o i n g reasons, reversed, Therefore, this cause the c i r c u i t is remanded court's order i s for proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Welch, Kellum, and Main, recuses. 12 J J . , concur. Wise, P . J .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.