James Michael West, Jr. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/05/2010 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-09-0132 James M i c h a e l West, J r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, from H o u s t o n C i r c u i t (CC-09-708) Judge. The a p p e l l a n t , J a m e s M i c h a e l one count o f t r a f f i c k i n g 231, A l a . Code habitual Court 1975. offender, West, J r . , p l e a d e d i ncocaine, The t r i a l a violation court t o a term o f l i f e sentenced guilty to o f § 13A-12West, as a imprisonment and ordered CR-09-0132 West t o pay a $50,000 f i n e , Compensation Fund, assessment, and a a $500 to the Alabama Crime V i c t i m s $2,000 $100 Drug Demand Department of Reduction Forensic Act Sciences assessment. On April W e s t on West one 30, count filed a warrantless was search held following and patrol a without on on vehicle, Ray probable October On 5, confidential t i p that area a from Georgia of cocaine. suspect, the vehicle, activities was No or State that the 2 the police said, suppression presented the Jim H o l l e y Department were Titan on received truck being t r a v e l i n g on O m u s s e e R o a d i t was suspect's s u p p l i e d by the o f D o t h a n when t h e y Nissan 2009, that the 2009, S e r g e a n t additional the 4, b e c a u s e , he the white and May which In a b l a c k m a l e w o u l d s o o n be i t s way in the Dothan P o l i c e indicted ground cause. 3, jury On the illegal 2009, February Mock o f quantity or his grand in cocaine. suppress i n t h e Omussee R o a d d r i v e n by on of evidence. Officer to County g r a m s o f c o c a i n e , was conducted hearing a Houston of t r a f f i c k i n g motion d i s c o v e r e d 117 it 2009, carrying information anticipated informant. a large about the movements Officer Mock CR-09-0132 testified that the person reliable providing informant. L e s s t h a n an h o u r l a t e r , the description opposite Officer the the officers by Mock d i d n o t u s e a r a d a r but guessed that saw a t r u c k the informant d i r e c t i o n of the o f f i c e r s truck, miles provided t h e t i p was n o t a k n o w n , fitting driving at a high rate i n the of speed. gun t o document t h e s p e e d o f i t was t r a v e l i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y p e r h o u r , w h i c h was a b o v e the posted speed limit. 70 The o f f i c e r s began f o l l o w i n g t h e t r u c k and o b s e r v e d t h e d r i v e r r u n a stop sign continued a s he made a r i g h t t u r n o n t o Webb R o a d . to drive over made t w o m o r e t u r n s , a house, later officers, the it. him determined lights The t w o o f f i c e r s about speeding that shaking Officer limit Mock on Webb R o a d , p u l l e d into a driveway of t o be West's r i g h t before of the house. testified were and e v e n t u a l l y speed mother's who w e r e d r i v i n g an u n m a r k e d p o l i c e emergency driveway the posted house. car, and r u n n i n g with the o f f i c e r s also a bulge noticed locked West and b e g a n asking 3 sign. heavily as he h a n d e d into the and the stop W e s t was b r e a t h i n g The initiated the driver pulled West g o t o u t o f t h e t r u c k made c o n t a c t The t r u c k Officer and t h a t h i s hands hisdriver's i n West's Mock pocket, license. so Mock CR-09-0132 conducted a pat-down s e a r c h f o r o f f i c e r were found. A check of West's d r i v e r ' s on p r o b a t i o n . for s a f e t y , b u t no w e a p o n s West t o l d drug charges. search the o f f i c e r s The o f f i c e r s h i s c a r , b u t West search. The officers license that the and t h e c a n i n e a r r i v e d dog i n d i c a t e d not give h i s consent C o r p o r a l Chad K i n n e y the v e h i c l e . clear, The o f f i c e r s plastic soon t h e r e a f t e r , to the o f f i c e r s bags f i l l e d with t o be c o c a i n e b e t w e e n t h e f r o n t A field was his test indicated i n fact cocaine. Miranda statement cocaine that and rights. West waived to police admitting Miranda v. A r i z o n a , point and f o u n d four appeared i n the p l a s t i c those f o r $4,000 4 asked bags d e t a i n e d West and r e a d h i m that 384 U.S. a s e a t and t h e d o o r . he with rights had 486 (1966). and made purchased the reselling i t . 1 to were p r e s e n t i n the truck passenger could Corporal at which a w h i t e powder t h a t The o f f i c e r s state drugs the substance 1 i n another that searched was t h a t he was on p r o b a t i o n him t o b r i n g a n a r c o t i c s - d e t e c t i n g dog t o t h e s c e n e . Kinney he t h e n a s k e d West i f t h e y would called indicated intention a the of CR-09-0132 At the c o n c l u s i o n of the h e a r i n g , the t r i a l West's motion to suppress. The Court court denied explained: "THE COURT: I t h i n k , w i t h t h e t r a f f i c violations, t h a t g i v e s them t h e i r r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t o s t o p him. And then I t h i n k t h a t t h e y ' r e e n t i t l e d t o a r e a s o n a b l e p e r i o d o f t i m e i n w h i c h t o g e t a d r u g dog out t o f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e t h e s t o p , w h i c h i s what they d i d . "I agree you can't use the r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h i s informant t o make t h i s case. That's for future p o t e n t i a l cases, not t h i s case. Can't use the f a c t t h a t he d e c l i n e d t o c o n s e n t t o a s e a r c h a g a i n s t h i m , e i t h e r . B u t , f o r t h e o t h e r r e a s o n s , I ' l l deny t h e motion." (R. 8 1 - 8 2 . ) his motion cocaine. On denied truck After r e s e r v i n g the r i g h t to suppress, This appeal, appeal West h i s motion West p l e a d e d warrantless In 2009), search State this West v. that the t r i a l suppress and t h e s t a t e m e n t s Specifically, guilty to t r a f f i c k i n g i n ensued. argues to to appeal the d e n i a l of the evidence he made t o p o l i c e contends that the of h i s t r u c k without Landrum, 18 So. 3d court erroneously found while i n West's i n custody. police conducted probable cause. 424 ( A l a . Crim. Court explained: " ' T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s de n o v o a c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n on a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e when t h e facts are not i n dispute. See S t a t e v . H i l l , 690 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 0 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; S t a t e v . O t w e l l , 733 5 a App. CR-09-0132 S o . 2 d 9 5 0 , 952 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) . ' S t a t e v. S k a g g s , 903 S o . 2 d 1 8 0 , 181 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2004). I n S t a t e v . H i l l , 690 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 1 ( A l a . 1996), the t r i a l court granted a motion to suppress f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g at which i t heard only the testimony of one police officer. Regarding the applicable standard of review, the Alabama Supreme Court s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , as f o l l o w s : "'"Where t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e trial 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 i n a p p l i c a b l e , and t h e Supreme C o u r t w i l l s i t i n j u d g m e n t o n 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 p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f t h e trial c o u r t ' 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 . B r o w n , 380 S o . 2 d 7 9 2 , 794 ( A l a . 1980) (citations omitted). The t r i a l j u d g e ' s r u l i n g i n t h i s c a s e was b a s e d upon h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the term " r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n " as a p p l i e d t o an undisputed set of facts; the proper i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s a q u e s t i o n of law.' "State 18 So. suppression this Hill, 690 at 3d v. 426. Because h e a r i n g i s not 2d at afford in dispute, C o u r t has (1968)'" Ohio, than the presented at only issue before court correctly i n favor of the c i r c u i t recognized that analogous" to the b r i e f v. evidence applied p r e s e n t e d a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , and no p r e s u m p t i o n This 1203-04." the Court i s whether the c i r c u i t law to the f a c t s Terry So. 392 to a traffic investigative U.S. custody 1, 88 S. 1868, traditionally 6 the we court's ruling. s t o p i s "'"more detention authorized Ct. the 20 L.Ed.2d associated with by 889 a CR-09-0132 felony Crim. 585 arrest. App. Sides 1990), (Ala. Crim. App. 468 a traffic violation, (Ala. 648, U.S. seized Crim. 653 based So. 2d 1 7 6 , 178 So. 2d 574 C a i n s v. in may (Ala. Crim. State, Illinois 858 So. (Ala. 2d Berkemer 2004)." v. 555 So. 2d 2 9 0 , Prouse, 392 U.S. 1 440 292 U.S. (1968)], for investigatory S t a t e v. R o d g e r s , 903 J.T.C. v. S t a t e , 990 2008). v. Caballes, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t 543 U.S. stated: " [ T ] h e use o f a w e l l - t r a i n e d n a r c o t i c s - d e t e c t i o n dog -- one t h a t 'does n o t e x p o s e n o n c o n t r a b a n d items that otherwise would remain hidden from public v i e w , ' [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v . ] P l a c e , 462 U.S. [696] a t 707 [(1983)] -during a lawful traffic stop, generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests. In this case, the dog sniff was p e r f o r m e d on t h e e x t e r i o r o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s c a r w h i l e he was l a w f u l l y s e i z e d f o r a t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n . A n y i n t r u s i o n on r e s p o n d e n t ' s p r i v a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s d o e s not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement." 7 583, i n F o u r t h Amendment v. [v. Ohio, violation. App. 541 turn stop a vehicle ( A l a . C r i m . App. 856, In s t o p p i n g a v e h i c l e f o r q u o t i n g Delaware Terry 2d State, quoting (1984). on a t r a f f i c in So. a p o l i c e o f f i c e r has, officers Furthermore, (2005), 439 "Under 447 444, 420, 1989), (1979). law-enforcement purposes 1989), the d r i v e r , App. State, q u o t i n g P i t t m a n v. McCarthy, terms, v. 405 CR-09-0132 543 U.S. a t 409. See 212 ( A l a . C r i m . App. also detection afforded by t h e F o u r t h dog was long. o f f i c e r s who witnessed the the unconstitutional. arrived after dog on whether an test' cause Montgomery, alert to justified The so record in violations; search properly denied out not i n d i c a t e that i t West's West's motion and Mock. truck. Accordingly, to 8 that that O f f i c e r Kinney See ( A l a . C r i m . App. a warrant."). an became a n a r c o t i c s - d e t e c t i n g dog by O f f i c e r s H o l l e y was by t h e p o l i c e carrying does prolonged 968 S o . 2 d 5 4 3 , 552 without by t h e detention traffic by a t r a i n e d d r u g - s n i f f i n g dog p r o v i d e s to search 209, protection i n d i c a t e d the presence of n a r c o t i c s , the o f f i c e r s probable 2d investigatory l a w f u l l y detained him commit v a r i o u s with contacted So. the the O f f i c e r Mock t e s t i f i e d the scene he was was were was within i s whether and detention. detention 669 the ' s n i f f come inquiry West officers investigatory State, Amendment."). justified unreasonably thus, d i d not the relevant detention v. 1995)("Likewise, narcotic Here, Seeley suppress. shortly Once t h e then had State 2006) v. ("[A]n probable cause the t r i a l court CR-09-0132 Based is on t h e f o r e g o i n g , the judgment of the t r i a l court affirmed. AFFIRMED. Wise, P . J . , and Welch, Windom, a n d M a i n , 9 J J . , concur.

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.