State of Alabama v. Elaine Bailey

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/30/2010 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-09-0115 S t a t e o f Alabama v. Elaine Appeal WISE, P r e s i d i n g The Bailey from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CC-09-1486) Judge. appellee, Elaine Bailey, was i n d i c t e d f o r u n l a w f u l possession of a c o n t r o l l e d substance, 212(a)(1), A l a . Code crack law enforcement rock Court 1975. She f i l e d officers a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-12a motion seized to suppress a during a patdown CR-09-0115 search. After Bailey's motion During conducting a hearing, the t r i a l to suppress. This May 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , Mobile 11:00 p.m. she and h e r p a r t n e r , O f f i c e r she thought o r 1 2 : 0 0 a.m.; that they down the middle of the road they saw B a i l e y a n d a man peddling the bicycle, standing on t h e b a c k wearing of helmets safety reflectors Caufield Bailey on t h e b i c y c l e ; was not wearing was a s a f e t y stopped hazard Bailey a n d t h e man and were on either traveling traffic; that on that t h e man was h o l d i n g on t o h i m a n d that helmets t h e two were n o t o r any o t h e r and not type having and a v i o l a t i o n ; t h a t she and t h e man; for identification, c o u l d produce any type following oncoming of the b i c y c l e ; that that, Caufield, saw a b i c y c l e and i n t o and B a i l e y Teresa i t was p r o b a b l y and d i d n o t have r e f l e c t o r s gear; Shalinda Department t e s t i f i e d Highway; that granted followed. the suppression hearing, Officer McCoy o f t h e Montgomery P o l i c e the appeal court and that they but neither of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . asked of them Subsequently, the occurred: "[PROSECUTOR:] A n d when t h e y w e r e n ' t produce i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , what d i d you do? able to "[WITNESS:] A s k e d b o t h o f them t o s t e p o f f t h e b i k e and p u t t h e b i k e down. My p a r t n e r , O f f i c e r C a u f i e l d , h e p a t t e d down t h e g u y , t h e m a l e s u b j e c t , 2 CR-09-0115 a n d I p a t t e d down t h e f e m a l e . We p a t t e d t h e m down for officer s a f e t y because they d i d n ' t have any i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d we d i d n ' t k n o w who t h e y w e r e . "[PROSECUTOR:] Now, i s t h a t a r o u t i n e p r a c t i c e ? When y o u d o n ' t h a v e -- w h e n s o m e o n e d o e s n ' t g i v e y o u I D , do y o u p a t p e o p l e down? I s i t c h e c k i n g f o r I D s ? I s t h a t what you're d o i n g ? "[WITNESS:] No. We're d o i n g i t f o r o f f i c e r s a f e t y t o see i f t h e y c o u l d have weapons o r a n y t h i n g b e c a u s e we d o n ' t k n o w who t h e y a r e . T h e y c o u l d b e ex-felons or anything. We d o n ' t k n o w who t h e y a r e . " (R. 6.) McCoy f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e p a t t e d Bailey had bulky items i n her pocket, w h a t was i n h e r p o c k e t ; t h a t her pocket; crack rock and t h a t that Caufield not was were McCoy Bailey Bailey pulled everything out of had l i p g l o s s , testified known that condoms, and a the stop occurred f o r p r o s t i t u t i o n ; that, t a l k i n g t o them, t h e man told when her that i n an she and he d i d k n o w B a i l e y a n d h a d j u s t met h e r , b u t B a i l e y s a i d t h e man was h e r b o y f r i e n d ; that or and she asked i n her pocket. Finally, area Bailey down B a i l e y ; t h a t that t h e two s t o r i e s d i d n o t a d d u p ; a n d she a n d C a u f i e l d t h o u g h t i t m i g h t be " a p r o s t i t u t i o n d e a l something." (R. 8.) 3 CR-09-0115 The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court erroneously B a i l e y ' s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s t h e c r a c k r o c k McCoy s e i z e d the patdown s e a r c h . the t o t a l i t y in McCoy's that of the circumstances, position her s a f e t y State v. Hill, supreme c o u r t review Specifically, would have and t h e s a f e t y 690 So. 2d to during i t contends t h a t , based a reasonably been 1201, prudent justified of others was 1203-04 a trial in believing i n danger. to standards court's ruling suppress: "'Where e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d t o the t r i a l court ore tenus i n a nonjury case, a presumption of correctness exists as to the 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 determination w i l l not be disturbed unless 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 S o . 2d 442 ( A l a . 1995). However, when t h e t r i a l c o u r t improperly a p p l i e s t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s , no presumption of correctness e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . E x parte Board of Zoning Adjustment o f t h e C i t y o f M o b i l e , 636 S o . 2 d 415 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . ' "[Ex parte 19 9 5 ) ] . " Agee,] 669 So. 4 2d [102,] 104 on person ( A l a . 1996), stated the f o l l o w i n g with regard t o b e a p p l i e d when r e v i e w i n g a motion granted [(Ala. In the of on CR-09-0115 I n R.W. 2005), this v. State, court 913 So. addressed 2d the 505, issue 512-13 of (Ala. Crim. patdown searches follows: " ' [ I ] n T e r r y v . O h i o , [391 U.S. 1 (1968)], t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t a l i m i t e d s e a r c h f o r w e a p o n s was partially justified by the need to protect the arresting officer from assault with a c o n c e a l e d weapon. "In determining whether a p o l i c e o f f i c e r had a b a s i s f o r i n i t i a t i n g a frisk, there are two matters to be considered: whether the officer had a sufficient degree of s u s p i c i o n t h a t the p a r t y f r i s k e d was a r m e d a n d d a n g e r o u s ; a n d w h e t h e r t h e o f f i c e r was r i g h t f u l l y i n the p r e s e n c e o f t h e p a r t y f r i s k e d so as t o be endangered i f that person was armed." L a F a v e , S e a r c h & S e i z u r e § 9 . 4 ( a ) (2d e d . 1987). By c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e o f f i c e r had sufficient articulable s u s p i c i o n t o make t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p , we also conclude that the officer was rightfully in the presence of the a p p e l l a n t , being the p a r t y frisked. Moreover, the United States Supreme C o u r t stated i n Terry v. Ohio, supra: "'"The officer need not be absolutely certain that the i n d i v i d u a l i s armed; the i s s u e i s whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be w a r r a n t e d i n the b e l i e f t h a t h i s s a f e t y o r t h a t o f o t h e r s was in danger. C f . B e c k v. O h i o , 379 U.S. 89, 91 [85 S. C t . 2 2 3 , 224, 13 L. Ed. 2d 142] (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 33 8 U.S. 160, 174-176 [69 S. Ct. 5 App. as CR-09-0115 1302, 1 3 1 0 - 1 3 1 1 , 93 L. E d . 1 8 7 9 ] ( 1 9 4 9 ) ; S t a c e y v . E m e r y , 97 U.S. 6 4 2 , 645 [24 L. E d . 1 0 3 5 ] ( 1 8 7 8 ) . And i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the o f f i c e r a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y i n such c i r c u m s t a n c e s , due w e i g h t must be given, not to h i s inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch,' but to the specific r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s w h i c h he i s e n t i t l e d t o draw from t h e f a c t s in l i g h t of h i s experience. Cf. B r i n e g a r v. U n i t e d S t a t e s s u p r a . " "'392 U.S. a t 2 7 , 88 S. C t . a t 1 8 8 3 . "'"We merely hold today that where a p o l i c e o f f i c e r observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of h i s experience t h a t c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y may be a f o o t a n d t h a t the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous ... he i s entitled f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of h i m s e l f and o t h e r s i n t h e a r e a t o conduct a carefully limited search of the outer c l o t h i n g of such persons i n an a t t e m p t to d i s c o v e r weapons w h i c h m i g h t be used to a s s a u l t him." " ' T e r r y v. Ohio, a t 1884.' " S t a t e v. R i c h a r d s o n , C r i m . App. 1993). 392 U.S. 616 So. a t 3 0 , 88 S. C t . 2d 400, 402-03 ( A l a . "Here, Officer Drummer and other officers r e c e i v e d a d i s p a t c h r e g a r d i n g an a n o n y m o u s caller who reported that s e v e r a l y o u n g men were using 6 CR-09-0115 illegal drugs on the porch of a residence in southwest Birmingham. The residence was in a h i g h - c r i m e a r e a s p e c i f i c a l l y known as an a r e a w h e r e i l l e g a l d r u g a c t i v i t y t o o k p l a c e ; t h e r e had also been s e v e r a l r e c e n t b u r g l a r i e s i n the area. When O f f i c e r Drummer a n d t h e o t h e r o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d , t h e y saw s e v e r a l y o u n g men on t h e f r o n t p o r c h of the r e s i d e n c e as t h e a n o n y m o u s c a l l e r d e s c r i b e d . A l l o f t h e men, i n c l u d i n g R.W., were f i d g e t i n g and a p p e a r e d nervous, and R.W., a t one point, had his hands inside his s h i r t . While conducting interviews with the men, one officer discovered a 'roach' in a f l o w e r b e d near the p o r c h . C o n s i d e r i n g the t o t a l i t y of the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we conclude that there was reasonable suspicion that R.W. was involved in c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y a n d t h a t R.W. may h a v e b e e n a r m e d so as t o j u s t i f y t h e T e r r y s t o p a n d f r i s k . Although O f f i c e r Drummer t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t b e l i e v e , when he i n i t i a t e d t h e p a t d o w n , t h a t R.W. was armed, O f f i c e r Drummer's s u b j e c t i v e b e l i e f s a r e i r r e l e v a n t in determining reasonable suspicion. 'Reasonable s u s p i c i o n , l i k e p r o b a b l e c a u s e , i s m e a s u r e d u s i n g an o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d . ' W i l l i a m s [ v . S t a t e ] , 716 So. 2d [ 7 5 3 , ] 756 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ] . C o n s i d e r i n g the circumstances, a reasonably prudent person in O f f i c e r Drummer's p o s i t i o n w o u l d have b e e n j u s t i f i e d i n b e l i e v i n g t h a t h i s s a f e t y as w e l l as t h e s a f e t y o f h i s f e l l o w o f f i c e r s was i n d a n g e r . See, e.g., H a l l v. State, 897 So. 2d 410 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d S m i t h v . S t a t e , 884 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003). See a l s o H i l l i a r d v . C o m m o n w e a l t h , 17 Va. App. 23, 26, 434 S.E.2d 911, 913 (1993) ('Suspicion of illegal drug possession and d i s t r i b u t i o n i s a circumstance which gives r i s e to an i n f e r e n c e o f d a n g e r o u s n e s s . ' ) . " This court has also held that "'not a l l stops c a l l f o r a f r i s k . ' 3 LaFave § 9.4, p. 1 1 5 . A p o l i c e o f f i c e r may conduct a reasonable s e a r c h o f a p e r s o n f o r w e a p o n s ' w h e r e he h a s r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t he i s d e a l i n g w i t h an a r m e d and 7 CR-09-0115 d a n g e r o u s i n d i v i d u a l , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r he has p r o b a b l e cause to a r r e s t the i n d i v i d u a l f o r a crime. The o f f i c e r n e e d n o t be a b s o l u t e l y c e r t a i n t h a t t h e individual is armed; the issue is whether a r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t man i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w o u l d be w a r r a n t e d i n the b e l i e f t h a t h i s s a f e t y or t h a t of o t h e r s was i n d a n g e r . ' T e r r y , 392 U.S. a t 2 7 , 88 S. Ct. at 1883. "In determining f a c t o r s m u s t be two whether a f r i s k considered: is justified, "'In determining whether a p o l i c e o f f i c e r had a b a s i s f o r i n i t i a t i n g a f r i s k , there are two m a t t e r s t o be considered. One concerns whether the officer had a sufficient degree of s u s p i c i o n t h a t the p a r t y f r i s k e d was a r m e d a n d d a n g e r o u s , a n d the other whether the officer was r i g h t f u l l y i n the p r e s e n c e of the party frisked so as t o be endangered i f that p e r s o n was a r m e d . ' 3 L a F a v e a t § 9 . 4 ( a ) , p. 109." W o r t h y v. State, First, properly did not we 473 So. 2d 634, contest that "[n]o time than that Moreover, Additionally, Initially, McCoy and § we App. Ala. 1985). C a u f i e l d were note that C a u f i e l d were p r o p e r l y 32-5A-261, b i c y c l e s h a l l be the (Ala. Crim. must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r McCoy and i n Bailey's presence. presence. 638 Code 1975, Bailey in provides u s e d t o c a r r y more p e r s o n s a t number f o r w h i c h i t i s designed § 32-5A-263(a), A l a . Code 1975, and 8 one equipped." provides: "Every person operating a b i c y c l e upon a s h a l l r i d e as n e a r t o t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e her roadway roadway CR-09-0115 as p r a c t i c a b l e , e x e r c i s i n g due c a r e when p a s s i n g a standing vehicle o r o n e p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e same direction." Further, § 32-5A-265(a), A l a . Code 1975, provides: " E v e r y b i c y c l e when i n u s e a t n i g h t t i m e s h a l l be e q u i p p e d w i t h a lamp on t h e f r o n t w h i c h s h a l l e m i t a white l i g h t v i s i b l e from a d i s t a n c e of a t l e a s t 500 f e e t t o t h e f r o n t a n d w i t h a r e d r e f l e c t o r o n the rear o f a type approved by t h e department which s h a l l b e v i s i b l e f r o m a l l d i s t a n c e s f r o m 100 f e e t t o 600 f e e t t o t h e r e a r when d i r e c t l y i n front of l a w f u l l o w e r beams o f h e a d l a m p s on a m o t o r v e h i c l e . A lamp e m i t t i n g a r e d l i g h t v i s i b l e from a d i s t a n c e o f 500 f e e t t o t h e r e a r may b e u s e d i n a d d i t i o n t o the r e d r e f l e c t o r . " Finally, § 32-5A-266(a), A l a . Code 1975, provides: " I t i s a m i s d e m e a n o r f o r a n y p e r s o n t o do a n y a c t forbidden o r f a i l t o p e r f o r m any a c t r e q u i r e d i n this article." In p.m. this c a s e , McCoy t e s t i f i e d i t was b e t w e e n 11:00 a n d 1 2 : 0 0 a.m.; t h a t B a i l e y a n d t h e man w e r e o n a b i c y c l e traveling down the middle of the t r a f f i c ; t h a t t h e man was p e d d l i n g holding that that on t o h i m a n d s t a n d i n g Bailey road and into oncoming t h e b i c y c l e , a n d B a i l e y was on t h e b a c k of the b i c y c l e ; a n d t h e man w e r e n o t w e a r i n g h e l m e t s and d i d not h a v e a n y r e f l e c t o r s ; a n d t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t B a i l e y a n d t h e man were n o t w e a r i n g helmets a n d d i d n o t h a v e a n y r e f l e c t o r s was 9 CR-09-0115 a safety hazard. rightfully Next, to Under these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i n Bailey's that Bailey presented evidence and 1 2 : 0 0 a.m. Also, the stop whom c o u l d was that produce that occurred was identification. not produce she d i d so f o r o f f i c e r between known reason The State 11:00 p.m. for prostitution. McCoy t e s t i f i e d any i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . safety She because a n d t h e man w e r e a n d b e c a u s e During cross-examination, that that down B a i l e y a n d t h e man b e c a u s e t h e y Bailey further could that who have been ex- defense counsel the fact her t o be c o n c e r n e d a b o u t o f f i c e r s a f e t y , and McCoy "Well, I didn't a n y t h i n g on h e r . anything." could s h e d i d n o t know they d i d n o t have she testified why (R. had i n v o l v e d two d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s , n e i t h e r o f Caufield patted felons. the o f f i c e r s armed and dangerous. the stop i n an a r e a and Bailey presence. we m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r believe t h e o f f i c e r s were a s k e d McCoy identification caused explained: know i f s h e h a d a n y w e a p o n s o r I d i d n ' t know h e r p a s t h i s t o r y o r 10.) At t h e end of t h e s u p p r e s s i o n hearing, the t r i a l stated: "And I was w a i t i n g , [ p r o s e c u t o r ] . Y o u know, I was h o p i n g s h e ' d s a y s o m e t h i n g l i k e , y o u k n o w , i t was 10 court CR-09-0115 l a t e a t n i g h t , J u d g e . I mean, M o b i l e H i g h w a y , y o u know, I ' v e b e e n o u t t h e r e b e f o r e a t 11 o ' c l o c k a t night. Y o u know, i t ' s a h i g h c r i m e a r e a . Y o u know, prostitution, drugs. I mean, these people are r i d i n g t h e i r b i k e t h e wrong way. Y o u know, i t ' s late at n i g h t . Y o u know, I d o n ' t know i f t h e y ' v e g o t w e a p o n s o r n o t , y o u know, b u t i n my e x p e r i e n c e as a p o l i c e o f f i c e r , I ' v e b e e n o u t t h e r e a m i l l i o n t i m e s , a n d , y o u know, I'm j u s t n o t g o i n g t o t a k e a c h a n c e f o r my s a f e t y . I mean, s o m e t h i n g . "... I mean, s h e d i d n ' t a r t i c u l a t e anything a b o u t i t . I a r t i c u l a t e d i t f o r h e r . I mean, a g o o d c o p , t h a t ' s w h a t I'm g o i n g t o s a y . Man, i t ' s 11 o'clock at night. I t ' s Mobile Highway, high prostitution, drug area. I've been out there numerous t i m e s . These yahoos a r e r i d i n g t h e i r b i k e in the middle of the road going t h e w r o n g way. S h o o t , y e a h , I'm p a t t i n g t h e m down. T h e y d o n ' t h a v e any i d e n t i f i c a t i o n on t h e m . I d o n ' t know what t h e y ' v e g o t on t h e m . I mean, y e a h , I a r t i c u l a t e d i t , b u t she d i d n ' t . " (R. 13-14.) Although M c C o y may reasons f o r performing clearly established that officer not have i n State 2010] So. 3d a similar situation , as of Bailey, she d i d so b a s e d v. T a y l o r , on her stated her safety. Further, t h e patdown artfully a concern [Ms. C R - 0 8 - 1 9 3 6 , (Ala. Crim. testimony A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) , we M a r c h 26, addressed follows: " T h i s Court has r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a t r a f f i c stop is '"'more a n a l o g o u s ' to the brief investigative detention authorized by Terry"' than custody 11 for CR-09-0115 traditionally associated with a felony arrest. S i d e s v . S t a t e , 574 So. 2 d 856, 858 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 0 ) , q u o t i n g P i t t m a n v . S t a t e , 541 So. 2d 5 8 3 , 585 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n B e r k e m e r v. M c C a r t y , 468 U.S. 420 , 439 (1984 ) . In s t o p p i n g a vehicle for a t r a f f i c violation, a police officer has, i n F o u r t h Amendment t e r m s , s e i z e d t h e driver, C a i n s v . S t a t e , 555 So. 2d 2 9 0 , 292 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 8 9 ) , q u o t i n g D e l a w a r e v . P r o u s e , 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979). So l o n g as t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r h a s properly seized the o c c u p a n t s of the c a r , the officer may o r d e r t h e d r i v e r , P e n n s y l v a n i a v . Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , o r a p a s s e n g e r , S t a t e v. H a i l s , 814 So. 2d 980 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 00 0)(recognizing M a r y l a n d v . W i l s o n , 519 U.S. 408, 415 (1997)), c e r t . d e n i e d , 814 So. 2d 988 ( A l a . 2001), out of the car w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g t h e F o u r t h Amendment. See, State v . A b n e r , 889 So. 2d 52, 53-54 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ( r e c o g n i z i n g the applicability o f Mimms and Wilson i n Alabama). "When a p o l i c e o f f i c e r p r o p e r l y s t o p s a v e h i c l e f o r a t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n , t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r may not o n l y o r d e r the d r i v e r out of the v e h i c l e , but may a l s o p a t down t h e d r i v e r f o r w e a p o n s i f t h e officer reasonably believes t h a t the d r i v e r i s armed and dangerous. Mimms, 434 U.S. a t 112. I n A r i z o n a v. Johnson, U.S. , 129 S.Ct. 781 (2009), the U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t explained: "'[I]n a traffic-stop s e t t i n g , the first T e r r y c o n d i t i o n -- a l a w f u l investigatory s t o p -- i s met whenever i t i s l a w f u l for police to detain an a u t o m o b i l e and its occupants pending i n q u i r y i n t o a vehicular violation. The p o l i c e n e e d n o t h a v e , i n a d d i t i o n , c a u s e t o b e l i e v e any o c c u p a n t o f the vehicle is involved in criminal activity. To j u s t i f y a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic s t o p , h o w e v e r , j u s t as i n t h e c a s e o f a p e d e s t r i a n r e a s o n a b l y suspected of c r i m i n a l 12 CR-09-0115 a c t i v i t y , t h e p o l i c e must h a r b o r r e a s o n a b l e suspicion that the person subjected to the f r i s k i s armed and d a n g e r o u s . ' " U.S. a t , 129 S . C t . a t 784 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . S e e a l s o B.A.H. v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 2 2 3 6 , May 1, 2009] So. 3d (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)(recognizing t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f A r i z o n a v. Johnson i n Alabama). "In the i n s t a n t case, the o f f i c e r s observed T a y l o r ' s v e h i c l e p a r k i n f r o n t o f a h o u s e known f o r drug a c t i v i t y i n a high-crime area and witnessed someone a p p r o a c h t h e h o u s e a n d r e t u r n t o t h e c a r a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5:00 a.m. T h e o f f i c e r s t h e n w i t n e s s e d T a y l o r commit a t r a f f i c o f f e n s e by d r i v i n g without h i s h e a d l i g h t s on a n d i n i t i a t e d a traffic stop. During the traffic stop, Taylor told Officer Butterbrodt that he d i d not have h i s d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e o r a n y f o r m o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n on h i s p e r s o n . O f f i c e r Butterbrodt t e s t i f i e d that Taylor could not i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f , a n d t h a t he deemed i t n e c e s s a r y t o c o n d u c t a p a t d o w n s e a r c h b e c a u s e i t was h i s b e l i e f a s a p o l i c e o f f i c e r t h a t T a y l o r was consciously trying to hide his identity and p o s s i b l y other e v i d e n c e o f c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y t h a t m i g h t p u t t h e two o f f i c e r s i n danger. See g e n e r a l l y Tuohy v. S t a t e , 776 S o . 2 d 8 9 6 , 8 9 9 - 9 0 0 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , w r i t q u a s h e d , 776 S o . 2 d 902 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . Furthermore, O f f i c e r Page t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n s i t u a t i o n s where a m o t o r i s t cannot produce a d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e , proof of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , o r p r o o f o f i n s u r a n c e , he w i l l w r i t e down t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n t o h i m b y t h e s u s p e c t a n d a t t e m p t t o v e r i f y t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on h i s c o m p u t e r . I f an o f f i c e r c a n n o t v e r i f y t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n t o him by t h e s u s p e c t , O f f i c e r Page t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was p o l i c e p o l i c y t o p l a c e t h e s u s p e c t i n p r o t e c t i v e custody ' b e c a u s e , a t t h e moment, we d o n ' t know who t h e y a r e and what k i n d o f w a r r a n t s t h e y have.' (R. 29.) 13 CR-09-0115 "Given the totality of the circumstances, O f f i c e r B u t t e r b r o d t was j u s t i f i e d i n conducting a patdown s e a r c h f o r weapons and s e i z i n g t h e crack pipe found i n Taylor's pocket. The officers o b s e r v e d T a y l o r i n a h i g h - c r i m e a r e a and w i t n e s s e d someone g e t o u t o f t h e c a r b e i n g d r i v e n by T a y l o r a n d w a l k up t o a h o u s e k n o w n f o r i t s d r u g a c t i v i t y . T h i s C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t t h e s e factors may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity i s afoot. See L a n d r u m , 18 So. 3 d a t 428 ( w i t n e s s i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t r e p e a t e d l y e x i t h i s c a r and a p p r o a c h a n e a r b y house l a t e a t n i g h t i n a high-crime area created sufficient reasonable suspicion for further investigation pursuant to Terry) . Furthermore, O f f i c e r B u t t e r b r o d t t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b a s e d on h i s e x p e r i e n c e , s u s p e c t s who s a y t h e y have no identification may be trying to hide s o m e t h i n g l i k e w e a p o n s , s o he f e l t a s i f he n e e d e d t o p a t down T a y l o r i n o r d e r t o make s u r e he was not armed. Officer Butterbrodt's inference that Taylor c o u l d be a r m e d was r e a s o n a b l e , a n d t h i s C o u r t m u s t give due weight to '"the specific reasonable inference which [a p o l i c e o f f i c e r ] i s e n t i t l e d t o draw from the f a c t s i n l i g h t of h i s e x p e r i e n c e . " ' S t a t e v . H a i l s , 814 So. 2 d a t 9 8 6 , q u o t i n g T e r r y , 392 U.S. a t 27. A c c o r d i n g l y , the c i r c u i t court a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t f o u n d t h a t t h e p o l i c e l a c k e d s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t o p a t down T a y l o r , and i t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g T a y l o r ' s m o t i o n t o suppress." B a s e d on a reasonably the totality prudent have been w a r r a n t e d others was in situation when stop they person i n the danger. precarious of the in circumstances McCoy's belief In fact, case, circumstances would t h a t her this law enforcement unknown individuals 14 in this s a f e t y or case officers in high that highlights are faced crime of the with areas, CR-09-0115 particularly court at night. erroneously Accordingly, this case Therefore, granted we r e v e r s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t Bailey's the t r i a l f o r proceedings motion court's that to the t r i a l suppress. judgment and remand are consistent with this opinion. R E V E R S E D AND Windom, dissents, Kellum, with WELCH, J u d g e , I trial Welch, J . , with erred the majority's when i t granted court correctly determination Elaine that the Bailey's motion to determined that the State n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t O f f i c e r McCoy h a d r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t o believe that necessary conduct The Bailey's court her J J . ,concur. dissenting. s u p p r e s s . The t r i a l did and Main, opinion. disagree court REMANDED. Bailey was a r m e d f o r the protection a patdown majority motion determined reasons and dangerous and t h a t of the o f f i c e r s i t was and others to search. seems t o i m p l y to suppress, that Officer f o r conducting that the t r i a l at least i n part, court granted because the McCoy d i d n o t " a r t f u l l y " t h e patdown 15 search; state however, t h e CR-09-0115 majority the found majority that the fellow search officer's was know safety" was McCoy's on testimony patdown search the who they establishes presented suspicion or correctly v. and The she the with suppressed d i d not might only her that she the o f f i c e r s therefore mention "officer the 392 could not U.S. that she be 1 and at the "bulky armed and dangerous. 27, obtained 16 items" any facts reasonably "unparticularized the trial i n the testified in Bailey's i n d i c a t i o n that court search. a l t h o u g h O f f i c e r McCoy weapons. or a officer's U.S. had Officer ex-felons (1 9 6 8 ) , have w a r r a n t e d evidence that, of a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e s the 392 revealed testify have been and clearly identification "[t]hey Ohio, 'hunch,'" patdown her companion only l a c k of judge would I note, moreover, that to her p r u d e n t p e r s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t B a i l e y was Being according for b e c a u s e B a i l e y and were. that Terry trial because, concern identification, r e l a t e d to the in error her Even under a l i b e r a l announced before based speculation anything." be safety. not p r o d u c e any not to O f f i c e r McCoy s u f f i c i e n t l y a r t i c u l a t e d McCoy's conducted the did ruling opinion, Officer did this pocket, the items CR-09-0115 "Q. A l l r i g h t . Y o u a l s o m e n t i o n e d t h e w o r d r o u t i n e p r a c t i c e when p e o p l e d o n ' t h a v e I D . I s i t y o u r r o u t i n e p r a c t i c e t o p a t somebody down when they don't have i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ? "A. Y e s . "Q. Okay. No circumstances you matter -- there's i n v o l v i n g whatever? a s k f o r ID a n d t h e y "A. No, n o , n o , I'm (R. -- i f not saying that. with I f they're in them, y e s , t h a t correct." 9-10.) Officer patdown McCoy when identification. reasonable belief testified an individual that facts of this 3d 912 reversed she r o u t i n e l y p e r f o r m e d could B a i l e y was not any f a c t s produce that court's App. denial indicate a armed. 2009), i n which of a motion this to suppress stated: " I n t h i s c a s e , [ O f f i c e r ] D a n l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s t o p p e d S m i t h b e c a u s e he was w a l k i n g i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e s t r e e t ; t h a t t h e a r e a was d a r k ; a n d t h a t t h e r e was a l o t o f d r u g a c t i v i t y i n t h a t a r e a . With regard t o the patdown, Danley asserted that he patted S m i t h down f o r o f f i c e r s a f e t y a n d t h a t he u s u a l l y c h e c k s s u b j e c t s f o r w e a p o n s when he g e t s o u t of t h e v e h i c l e and a p p r o a c h e s them. However, D a n l e y d i d n o t t e s t i f y t h a t he b e l i e v e d S m i t h was a r m e d . 17 a any case a r e s i m i l a r t o Smith v. S t a t e , ( A l a . Crim. a trial that She d i d n o t s t a t e The So. I f somebody other d o n ' t h a v e an I D -¬ a v e h i c l e o r we come i n c o n t a c t is no 19 court and CR-09-0115 F u r t h e r , he d i d n o t t e s t i f y a s t o a n y s p e c i f i c f a c t s t h a t w o u l d s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t he was j u s t i f i e d in believing t h a t Smith was a r m e d a n d p r e s e n t l y dangerous. T h e r e f o r e , D a n l e y was n o t j u s t i f i e d i n s t o p p i n g Smith and p e r f o r m i n g a patdown s e a r c h , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d when i t d e n i e d S m i t h ' s m o t i o n to suppress the evidence Danley s e i z e d from h i s person." 19 S o . 3d 912 a t 9 1 9 . An officer officer has individual may reason who patdown to an believe i s armed and individual that he only when i s dealing with the an dangerous. "Furthermore, t h e r e was n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d concerning the o f f i c e r s ' justification f o r the w e a p o n s f r i s k p e r f o r m e d on t h e a p p e l l a n t . The r i g h t to f r i s k a s u s p e c t f o r w e a p o n s i s s e p a r a t e f r o m an officer's r i g h t to stop a suspect. Under T e r r y a n a l y s i s , i t i s o n l y ' w h e r e he h a s r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t he i s d e a l i n g w i t h a n a r m e d a n d d a n g e r o u s i n d i v i d u a l , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r he h a s p r o b a b l e cause to a r r e s t the i n d i v i d u a l f o r a crime,' t h a t a weapons f r i s k comes i n t o p l a y . T e r r y v. Ohio, s u p r a , 392 U.S. a t 2 7 , 88 S . C t . a t 1 8 8 3 . Moreover, the o f f i c e r 'must b e a b l e t o p o i n t t o p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s f r o m w h i c h he r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r r e d t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l was a r m e d a n d d a n g e r o u s . ' S i b r o n v . New Y o r k , 392 U.S. 4 0 , 64, 88 S. C t . 1 8 8 9 , 1 9 0 3 , 20 L. E d . 2 d 917 (1968)." B r a n n o n v . S t a t e , 549 S o . 2 d 5 3 2 , 538 The contain The testimony sufficient majority presented facts quoted to to support the the trial App. court of Officer 1989). did the T e r r y patdown testimony 18 (Ala. Crim. not search. McCoy as CR-09-0115 justification for majority as were the patdown. The facts presented by the follows: "The State presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the s t o p o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n 11:00 p.m. a n d 12:00 a.m. in an a r e a known f o r p r o s t i t u t i o n . A l s o , the stop i n v o l v e d t w o d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s , n e i t h e r o f whom could produce identification. Officer McCoy t e s t i f i e d t h a t she and [Officer] Caufield patted down B a i l e y a n d t h e man b e c a u s e B a i l e y and t h e man c o u l d not p r o d u c e any i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . She further t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d so f o r o f f i c e r s a f e t y b e c a u s e s h e d i d n o t k n o w who B a i l e y a n d t h e man were and because t h e y c o u l d have been e x - f e l o n s . During cross-examination, defense counsel asked Officer McCoy why the fact that Bailey did not have identification caused her t o be concerned about o f f i c e r s a f e t y , and O f f i c e r McCoy e x p l a i n e d : "'Well, I didn't know i f s h e had w e a p o n s o r a n y t h i n g on h e r . I didn't her p a s t h i s t o r y or anything.'" (R. Bailey 10.)" v. State, (Ala. Under searching Officer view any know that situation Crim. that anyone McCoy a [Ms. did CR-09-0115, A p r i l App. not would have an history articulate reasonably 2010] So. 3d 2010). rationale, whose 30, prudent believed dangerous. 19 officer is he or any facts person that she justified did that in Bailey the was not in know. support the officer's armed and CR-09-0115 The sound trial and court's should be judgment affirmed. dissent. 20 suppressing Therefore, the evidence I was respectfully

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.