State of Alabama v. O. R. J., alias

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/25/2010 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-09-0275 S t a t e o f Alabama v. O.R.J. Appeal WISE, P r e s i d i n g The from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CC-09-657) Court Judge. appellee, O.R.J., was indicted for unlawful p o s s e s s i o n o f a c o n t r o l l e d substance and f i r s t - d e g r e e u n l a w f u l CR-09-0275 possession law of marijuana. enforcement O.R.J. moved t o s u p p r e s s 1 officers s e i z e d pursuant s e a r c h o f h i s v e h i c l e and statements he was a r r e s t e d . to a evidence warrantless he made t o o f f i c e r s after A f t e r conducting a hearing, the t r i a l court g r a n t e d O.R.J.'s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . This appeal by the S t a t e followed. The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y O.R.J.'s motion t o suppress officers seized pursuant vehicle. Specifically, smell t h e odor the evidence to a warrantless granted law enforcement search of h i s i t contends t h a t , because they of marijuana coming from could h i s v e h i c l e and b e c a u s e O.R.J. was a c t i n g s u s p i c i o u s l y a n d gave a f a l s e name and false date of b i r t h , the o f f i c e r s had probable cause t o search h i s v e h i c l e . D u r i n g t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , O f f i c e r Howard L a w h o r n o f t h e Montgomery P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t , on November 14, 2008, w h i l e t h e y were p r e p a r i n g t o s e t up a c h e c k p o i n t , he and other officers stopped O.R.J.'s v e h i c l e b e c a u s e he was p l a y i n g h i s music t o o l o u d l y . They t o l d O.R.J. t o s t a y i n t h e O . R . J . was a l s o i n d i c t e d t h a t charge i s not before us. 1 2 f o r third-degree escape, but CR-09-0275 vehicle, which b u t he g o t o u t a n d s t a r t e d w a l k i n g Lawhorn described as " k i n d away f r o m them, of suspicious." ( R . 6.) O.R.J. t h e n t u r n e d a r o u n d , a n d t h e o f f i c e r s s t a r t e d a s k i n g h i m questions. Lawhorn t e s t i f i e d identification first. that on h i m a n d t h a t O.R.J. d i d n o t have any he gave them a f a l s e name a t He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y were a b o u t f i v e f e e t away f r o m t h e v e h i c l e a n d t h a t O.R.J. was c l o s e enough t o g e t b a c k into the vehicle at that t i m e i f he w a n t e d t o . t e s t i f i e d that they smelled testified 2008, that when vehicle. M.A. Jones After started walking the v e h i c l e . o f t h e Montgomery P o l i c e he was on d u t y w i t h Corporal he t h e odor o f m a r i j u a n a coming from the v e h i c l e and t h a t another o f f i c e r e n t e r e d Officer Finally, Deramus L a w h o r n on November 14, initiated the vehicle Department stopped, a stop o f O.R.J.'s O.R.J. g o t o u t and away, b u t Deramus i n s t r u c t e d h i m t o g e t b a c k t o t h e v e h i c l e , a n d he d i d . J o n e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t O.R.J. was e x t r e m e l y n e r v o u s a n d was l o o k i n g away, t h a t he c o u l d n o t a n s w e r a n y q u e s t i o n s , and t h a t he gave them a f a l s e name a n d a f a l s e d a t e o f b i r t h . He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t O.R.J. was j i t t e r y a n d s t a r t e d s w e a t i n g . 3 Jones CR-09-0275 t e s t i f i e d t h a t O.R.J. was d e t a i n e d b u t n o t i n c u s t o d y a n d t h a t he c o u l d have g o t t e n b a c k i n t o t h e v e h i c l e a t t h a t t i m e . Jones testified to p e r f o r m a wing because O.R.J. t h a t he a n d Deramus e n t e r e d t h e v e h i c l e span s e a r c h and t o l o o k f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n h a d been lying about his identity. s m e l l e d t h e s t r o n g odor o f m a r i j u a n a i n t h e v e h i c l e , i t e m w i t h O.R.J.'s then found name on i t , c o n f i r m e d narcotics i n the vehicle. They f o u n d an h i s i d e n t i t y , and At that point, h a n d c u f f e d O.R.J. a n d p l a c e d h i m i n a p a t r o l v e h i c l e . t h e o f f i c e r s were c h e c k i n g h i m t h r o u g h t h e i r c o m p u t e r they While system, O.R.J. g o t o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e a n d r a n up t h e s t r e e t . At t h e end o f Jones's testimony, the following occurred: "THE COURT: A n y t h i n g e l s e o t h e r t h a n -- t h a t s u g g e s t e d t h a t he c o m m i t t e d a c r i m e o r was a b o u t t o commit a c r i m e o r d o i n g a n y t h i n g i l l e g a l ? "THE WITNESS: H i s a c t i o n s , h i s mannerism w h i l e he was s p e a k i n g w i t h C o r p o r a l Deramus a n d m y s e l f . "THE COURT: "THE WITNESS: "THE COURT: "THE WITNESS: "THE COURT: "THE WITNESS: What was t h a t ? He was e x t r e m e l y Was t h i s d a y t i m e nervous. or nighttime? I t was n i g h t t i m e , T h i s i s on G a s t o n Correct,s i r . 4 sir. Avenue? CR-09-0275 "THE COURT: E v e r y b o d y o v e r t h e r e when a p o l i c e o f f i c e r s t o p s them w i l l a c t n e r v o u s . "THE WITNESS: o f f i c e r , Judge. Corporal Deramus is a black "THE COURT: W e l l , I d o n ' t c a r e i f he i s b l a c k r white, they a r e j u s t going t o a c tnervous. Ain't or no q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h a t . B u t he h a d n ' t done a n y t h i n g e l s e t o show t h a t he h a d c o m m i t t e d a c r i m e ? "THE WITNESS: He a t t e m p t e d t o g e t away f r o m t h e v e h i c l e b e f o r e C o r p o r a l Deramus c o u l d g e t t o h i m . "THE happen? COURT: What y o u mean? How d i d that "THE WITNESS: As s o o n a s C o r p o r a l Deramus i n i t i a t e d h i s e m e r g e n c y e q u i p m e n t , he i m m e d i a t e l y p u l l e d over i n t o a p a r k i n g l o t , g o t out of h i s v e h i c l e a n d a t t e m p t e d t o w a l k away. "THE COURT: Y'all "THE WITNESS: (R. 18-19.) stopped Yes, him? sir." L a t e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d O.R.J.'s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s w i t h o u t any f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . In S t a t e v. H i l l , 690 So. 2d 1 2 0 1 , 1203-04 ( A l a . 1996), t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g w i t h r e g a r d t o standards of review t o be a p p l i e d c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a m o t i o n when reviewing a t o suppress: "As a p r e l i m i n a r y m a t t e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e r e h a s b e e n some d e b a t e r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d of a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . I n i t s u n p u b l i s h e d memorandum, t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s showed g r e a t d e f e r e n c e 5 trial CR-09-0275 to the t r i a l court's evidence of the cocaine d e c i s i o n t o suppress the and m a r i j u a n a . I t stated: " ' [ A ] t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s i t i s "palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence." P a t t e r s o n v . S t a t e , 659 So. 2d 1014 ( A l a . C r . App. 1995) . The t r i a l c o u r t i s i n a f a r b e t t e r [ s i c ] than t h i s court t o r u l e on t h e m e r i t s o f a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . S u l l i v a n v. S t a t e , 23 A l a . App. 464, 127 So. 256 ( 1 9 3 0 ) . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g [on] the motion t o suppress was n o t p a l p a b l y wrong.' "The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d e f e r e n c e o f t h e Court o f C r i m i n a l Appeals t o t h e judgment o f the trial c o u r t was u n w a r r a n t e d . I t c l a i m s t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s h o u l d r e v i e w de novo t h e t r i a l court's finding that 'reasonable s u s p i c i o n ' was l a c k i n g , because the f a c t s i n t h e case are not i n dispute. We a g r e e . "The t r i a l j u d g e made h i s r u l i n g f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g a t w h i c h he h e a r d o r a l t e s t i m o n y o n l y f r o m O f f i c e r B a i l e y . We s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e Agee, 669 So. 2d 102 ( A l a . 1995) : "'Where e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l court ore tenus i n a nonjury case, a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on i s s u e s o f f a c t ; i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, m a n i f e s t l y unjust, or against the great weight of the evidence. Odom v . H u l l , 658 So. 2d 442 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . However, when t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a p p l i e s t h e law to the facts, no p r e s u m p t i o n of correctness exists as t o t h e court's j udgment. Ex p a r t e Board of Zoning 6 CR-09-0275 Adjustment of the C i t y 2d 415 ( A l a . 1994) of Mobile, 636 So. "669 So. 2d a t 104. 'Where t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t was u n d i s p u t e d t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e i s inapplicable, a n d t h e Supreme C o u r t w i l l s i tin j u d g m e n t on t h e e v i d e n c e de n o v o , i n d u l g i n g no presumption in favor of the trial court's a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o those f a c t s . ' S t i l e s v. Brown ^ Brown, 380 So. 2d T H O 380 792, T O / I 794 / 7 AI l, a . i n o n \ (\ 1980) / A i4- a 4- Ai o n s (c t t A -I- -I- ^ ^ \ II omitted)." (Emphasis added.) "The F o u r t h Amendment d o e s n o t r e q u i r e that p o l i c e o b t a i n a w a r r a n t t o s e a r c h a n a u t o m o b i l e when they have p r o b a b l e cause to b e l i e v e i t c o n t a i n s contraband or evidence of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . United S t a t e s v . R o s s , 456 U.S. 7 9 8 , 102 S. C t . 2 1 5 7 , 72 L. E d . 2 d 572 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; C h a m b e r s v . M a r o n e y , 399 U.S. 4 2 , 90 S. C t . 1 9 7 5 , 26 L. E d . 2 d 419 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ( w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h o f v e h i c l e v a l i d when p o l i c e h a d p r o b a b l e cause to b e l i e v e automobile contained evidence of s e r v i c e s t a t i o n robbery because automobile matched d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n by e y e w i t n e s s e s ) . Two r a t i o n a l e s u n d e r l i e the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. First, the inherent m o b i l i t y of vehicles creates exigent circumstances that make obtaining a warrant i m p r a c t i c a l . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C h a d w i c k , 433 U.S. 1, 97 S. C t . 2 4 7 6 , 53 L. E d . 2 d 538 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Second, t h e r e i s a l e s s e n e d e x p e c t a t i o n of privacy i n automobiles because of p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p e r v a s i v e r e g u l a t i o n o f moving vehicles. A r k a n s a s v . S a n d e r s , 442 U.S. 7 5 3 , 99 S. C t . 2 5 8 6 , 61 L. E d . 2 d 2 3 5 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; C a l i f o r n i a v . C a r n e y , 471 U.S. 3 8 6 , 105 S. C t . 2 0 6 6 , 85 L. E d . 2 d 406 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; M e w b o u r n v . S t a t e , 570 S o . 2 d 805 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1990)." Seagroves 1998). v. State, Under the 726 So. 2d automobile 7 738, 743 exception ( A l a . Crim. to the App. warrant CR-09-0275 requirement, justified contains "'[a] warrantless search where t h e r e i s p r o b a b l e cause contraband.' Lykes of a vehicle i s to believe the vehicle v. S t a t e , 709 So. 2d 1 3 3 5 , 1337 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1997)." H a r r i s v. S t a t e , (Ala. Crim. Finally, App. 2006). 948 S o . 2 d 5 8 3 , 587 "[w]hether t h e r e i s p r o b a b l e cause t o m e r i t a w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e i s t o be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I l l i n o i s v. G a t e s , 462 U.S. 2 1 3 , 103 S. C t . 2 3 1 7 , 76 L. E d . 2 d 527 (1983). ' P r o b a b l e cause e x i s t s where a l l t h e facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge a r e s u f f i c i e n t to warrant a person of r e a s o n a b l e c a u t i o n t o c o n c l u d e t h a t an o f f e n s e h a s been or i s b e i n g committed and t h a t c o n t r a b a n d would be f o u n d i n t h e p l a c e t o b e s e a r c h e d . ' Sheridan v. S t a t e , 5 9 1 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 , 130 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) . " State v. Stallworth, 645 S o . 2 d 3 2 3 , 325 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). O.R.J. authority for a argues that to search noise officers ordinance first officers h i s v e h i c l e because e v i d e n c e showed t h a t the the violation. O.R.J. a c t e d did not the stop However, the have was the merely undisputed s u s p i c i o u s l y from the time s t o p p e d h i m , t h a t he i n i t i a l l y from t h e v e h i c l e even though t h e o f f i c e r s w a l k e d away t o l d him t o s t a y i n the v e h i c l e , t h a t he was s w e a t i n g a n d a p p e a r e d t o be n e r v o u s , and that he l i e d to the o f f i c e r s 8 a b o u t h i s name a n d d a t e o f CR-09-0275 birth. Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e o f f i c e r s were j u s t i f i e d i n e n t e r i n g the v e h i c l e t o conduct a wingspan search and t o l o o k f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , C f . S t a t e v. B a i l e y , [Ms. CR-09-0115, A p r i l 30, 2010) So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) (holding t h a t o f f i c e r s were j u s t i f i e d i n s e a r c h i n g B a i l e y where B a i l e y and a f e m a l e were on a b i c y c l e t r a v e l i n g down t h e m i d d l e o f the road and i n t o oncoming t r a f f i c , were n o t w e a r i n g safety g e a r , a n d c o u d n o t p r o d u c e any t y p e o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ) ; v. Taylor, [Ms. CR-08-1936, M a r c h 26, 2010] (Ala. Crim. justified App. i n searching a r e a , was s e e n w a l k i n g activity, (holding Taylor when he was So. 3d that officers in a reasonable, and were up t o a h o u s e t h a t was known f o r d r u g noting " i n f e r e n c e t h a t T a y l o r c o u l d be armed was this reasonable , high-crime and s a i d he d i d n o t h a v e any i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , that the o f f i c e r ' s specific 2010) State Court must inference give which due weight [a p o l i c e to "'the officer] is e n t i t l e d t o draw f r o m t h e f a c t s i n l i g h t o f h i s e x p e r i e n c e . ' " S t a t e v. H a i l s , 27. 814 So. 2d a t 986, q u o t i n g T e r r y , 392 U.S. a t ") . F u r t h e r , J o n e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r t h e y e n t e r e d t h e v e h i c l e , they smelled marijuana. officers had probable cause Therefore, to 9 search at t h a t time, the the vehicle for CR-09-0275 marijuana. App. 2003). granted See S t a t e v . G a r g u s , 855 So. 2d 587 ( A l a . C r i m . For these reasons, the t r i a l O.R.J.'s m o t i o n t o suppress the evidence s e i z e d d u r i n g t h e s e a r c h and statements A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l this case f o r proceedings that c o u r t e r r e d when i t he made thereafter. c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d remand are consistent opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. W e l c h , Windom, K e l l u m , a n d M a i n , 10 officers J J . , concur. with this

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.