State of Alabama v. Jerome Corvisky Perry, alias

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/17/2010 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, 2010-2011 CR-09-1329 S t a t e o f Alabama v. Jerome C o r v i s k y Appeal KELLUM, from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CC-10-316) Court Judge. Jerome unlawful violation pretrial Perry Corvisky possession Perry of marijuana o f § 13A-12-213, motion was t o suppress arrested and charged i n the first A l a . Code 1975. theevidence with degree, Perry filed a a s e i z e d f r o m h i m -- CR-09-1329 plastic bags officials license trial during with a granted Perry's Crim. by carried an motion P., -- law-enforcement out at a driver's evidentiary hearing, t o suppress. the State the Pursuant t o appeals the trial ruling. The State stop Following 1 5 . 7 , A l a . R. court's marijuana traffic checkpoint. court Rule filled following pertinent at the suppression evidence presented by the On A u g u s t 6, 2 0 0 9 , hearing. was Officer S t u a r t Upshaw o f t h e Montgomery P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t ("MPD") was assisting a driver's a special operations license checkpoint a t an a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x when he e n c o u n t e r e d Perry at the checkpoint. As O f f i c e r Upshaw a p p r o a c h e d vehicle, he c o u l d Perry's vehicle. driver's l i c e n s e or proof Perry t o step smell t h e odor of marijuana Perry As P e r r y Upshaw that observed pocket, patting Perry approximately d i d not have of insurance. which Officer down, left Upshaw Officer 3 or 4 inches hand O f f i c e r Upshaw he c o u l d found Upshaw long 2 remained a asked conduct a Officer in his left suspicious. felt from vehicle his stepped out of the v e h i c l e , Perry's Perry's emanating i n the out of h i s v e h i c l e so t h a t patdown search. pant unit i n conducting While hard object and removed i t from Perry's CR-09-1329 left pocket. immediately Perry's recognize pocket. rectangular holding circuit result did not record of object turned officer box under was Perry's reasonable b e l i e v e d he weapons. the traffic out to small t o be "at one point, hearing evidence testify a drug t h a t he weapon suspicion to and on seize the 3 the the did the grounds the not object bags extensively Upshaw 8.) as circuit court circuit the pursuant the from that in to The seized object have patdown intend i t is clear that believed thus, yellow, Officer (R. drugs fact, i t in plastic d i d not point." the not marijuana. Although of a needed to conduct a that stop. did felt be O f f i c e r Upshaw At findings suppression the be arrest written Upshaw d i d n o t to questioned he o n c e he containing u l t i m a t e l y suppressed issue of for that t h a t a f t e r s m e l l i n g m a r i j u a n a , he court of court Perry Perry suppressed pocket object sandwich-bag the testified place testified what the The circuit t o why search Upshaw what O f f i c e r Upshaw b e l i e v e d The as Officer the court Officer Perry's requisite to a Terry CR-09-1329 v. Ohio, 3 9 2 U.S. appealed. In 2009), 1 (1968), "patdown" search. The State ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 State this v. Landrum, 18 So. 3d 424 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. S e e S t a t e v . H i l l , 690 So. 2 d 1 2 0 1 , 1203 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; S t a t e v . O t w e l l , 733 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 . 2 0 0 4 ) . I n S t a t e v . H i l l , 690 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , t h e t r i a l court granted a motion t o suppress following a h e a r i n g a t which i t heard only the testimony of one police officer. Regarding the applicable standard of review, t h e 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 before the 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 i n a p p l i c a b l e , a n d t h e Supreme C o u r t will s i t i n 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 p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f t h e 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 . B r o w n, 380 So. 2 d 7 9 2 , 794 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . 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 w a s 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 t h e term We a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a l s o suppressed s t a t e m e n t s a l l e g e d l y made b y P e r r y o n c e h e w a s i n c u s t o d y . Neither the State nor Perry presented evidence i n connection w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t s P e r r y made i n c u s t o d y , a n d t h e S t a t e d o e s n o t r a i s e t h e i s s u e h e r e on a p p e a l . Therefore, the issue i s d e e m e d w a i v e d , a n d we w i l l n o t a d d r e s s t h e c l a i m o n a p p e a l . See B o s h e l l v . K e i t h , 418 S o . 2 d 8 9 , 92 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ("When a n a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o argue an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , t h a t i s s u e i s waived."). 1 4 CR-09-1329 "reasonable 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 question of law.' "State 18 So. 3d v. H i l l , 690 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 0 3 - 0 4 . " at Because suppression t h i s Court law 426. hearing i s whether the c i r c u i t no p r e s u m p t i o n This Court analogous" Terry Ohio, traditionally State, 574 So. 2d v. S t a t e , quoting i n turn In officer driver, Cains 1989), quoting "Under Terry may U.S. 1 with a 8 5 6 , 858 Berkemer felony has, i n Fourth v. S t a t e , for a [v. Ohio, U.S. stop than U.S. traffic Sides 1989), 420 , 439 a seized the (Ala. Crim. 6 4 8 , 653 (1968)], v. quoting violation, terms, a vehicle for investigatory 5 custody 1990 ) , 468 440 U.S. 1 i s "'"more arrest. 555 S o . 2 d 2 9 0 , 292 392 ruling. ( A l a .C r . App. Amendment Delaware v. Prouse, stop court's App. McCarthy, a vehicle a n d we (1968 ) ] ' " ( A l a . Crim. v. before detention authorized i n 541 S o . 2 d 5 8 3 , 585 stopping police officers 392 issue hearing, that a t r a f f i c investigative associated Pittman (1984). at the suppression has r e c o g n i z e d at the court c o r r e c t l y applied the i n favor of the c i r c u i t to the b r i e f [v. presented i s not i n dispute, the only to the facts presented afford the evidence App. (1979). law-enforcement purposes based CR-09-1329 on a t r a f f i c violation. (Ala. C r i m . App. (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)." S t a t e v. Rodgers, 903 S o . 2 d 1 7 6 , 178 J.T.C. v. S t a t e , 990 S o . 2 d 4 4 4 , 447 2008). "'Whether 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 of the circumstances. I l l i n o i s v. G a t e s , 4 62 U.S. 2 1 3 , 103 S. C t . 2 3 1 7 , 76 L. E d . 2 d 527 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . " 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 are 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 w o u l d be f o u n d i n t h e p l a c e t o be s e a r c h e d . " S h e r i d a n v. S t a t e , 591 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 , 130 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) . ' S t a t e v . S t a l l w o r t h , 645 S o . 2 d 3 2 3 , 325 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 19 9 4 ) . " Woods v . State, "Sufficient 695 So. probability, 2d ( A l a . Crim. App. 640 ( A l a . Crim. not c e r t a i n t y u n d e r t h e F o u r t h Amendment." 216 636, Allen App. ... , i s t h e v. S t a t e , 1996). touchstone 689 S o . 2 d 2 1 2 , 1995). "Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless they f a l l w i t h i n a recognized exception. Ex p a r t e H i l l e y , 484 S o . 2 d 485 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . Those exceptions include: objects in plain view, consensual searches, a search incident to a lawful arrest, hot pursuit or emergency situations, p r o b a b l e cause c o u p l e d w i t h e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and a T e r r y ' s t o p and f r i s k ' s i t u a t i o n . D a n i e l s v. S t a t e , 290 A l a . 3 1 6 , 276 S o . 2 d 441 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Where a search i s executed without a warrant, the burden f a l l s u p o n t h e S t a t e t o show t h a t t h e s e a r c h f a l l s w i t h i n an e x c e p t i o n . K i n a r d v . S t a t e , 335 S o . 2 d 924 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) . " 6 CR-09-1329 Ex parte Tucker, Here, Officer upon State, that 2d odor probable of cause occupants); ("A police has the So. the 1200, officer's coming sufficient to provide person."). cause Thus, vehicle, to contraband search justified in object felt he of the State, from Perry's detecting the a after smelling Officer Upshaw had v e h i c l e and therein. i n Perry's (holding vehicle provides arrest its 581 (Ala. 2001) of raw or or burned person is search that place marijuana coming the requisite person patdown v. to place Accordingly, the Blake 578, to the the 2000) smell cause after and 2d particular probable officer e.g., a vehicle So. stop, App. from 815 from we traffic See, (Ala. Crim. emanating conducting Furthermore, a emanating marijuana. 1205 Perry's found during a v e h i c l e or a suspect search Adams v . Perry ( A l a . 1995). repeatedly held that a police drugs to 1343 marijuana odor marijuana Perry's 1339, cause to search smells 772 2d smelled This Court probable officer So. confronting Upshaw vehicle. has 667 and to Officer search and or from probable seize any Upshaw was seizing the pocket. observe that O f f i c e r Upshaw were i r r e l e v a n t the subjective beliefs i n determining whether 7 of Officer CR-09-1329 Upshaw c o n d u c t e d Amendment. 1993), a valid I n Ex parte the Alabama search and s e i z u r e under t h e F o u r t h Scarbrough, Supreme C o u r t 621 So. 2d 1 00 6 ( A l a . explained: " F o l l o w i n g t h e [ U n i t e d S t a t e s ] Supreme C o u r t ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r a n o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d , we a d o p t t h e o b j e c t i v e t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a n a r r e s t was p r e t e x t u a l and t h e r e f o r e u n l a w f u l . As l o n g as t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r i s d o i n g o n l y what i s o b j e c t i v e l y authorized and l e g a l l y permitted, the officer's subjective intent i n doing i t i s i r r e l e v a n t . "In the instant case, the police officers arrested Scarbrough pursuant to a valid arrest warrant. A f t e r a d v i s i n g him of h i s Miranda rights, t h e y m e r e l y i n q u i r e d w h e t h e r he w a n t e d t o d i s c u s s the murder. T h e i r c o n d u c t was r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r t h e objective test and d i d not v i o l a t e the Fourth Amendment. T h e r e f o r e , 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 p r o p e r l y a f f i r m e d the judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t . " 621 So. 2d a t 1010. to search probable Perry cause O f f i c e r U p s h a w was o b j e c t i v e l y because to Officer search Perry's O f f i c e r Upshaw s m e l l e d m a r i j u a n a . The circuit court's Terry Upshaw the fact had that probable person. Thus, Upshaw's subjective the and requisite vehicle pocket to search court concerns over 8 Perry's improperly what Officer t o be a weapon smelling the marijuana, cause once S e e , A d a m s , 815 S o . a t 5 8 1 . i n Perry's upon the c i r c u i t person had a n a l y s i s regarding whether Upshaw b e l i e v e d t h e o b j e c t ignores Upshaw authorized vehicle weighed Officer Officer and Officer Upshaw was CR-09-1329 " o b j e c t i v e l y a u t h o r i z e d and l e g a l l y p e r m i t t e d " Fourth holding in Amendment, contrary i n Scarbrough. granting Based Perry's Accordingly, motion to on t h e f o r e g o i n g , judgment and remand t h i s this t o t h e Alabama t o do u n d e r t h e Supreme the c i r c u i t Court's court erred suppress. we reverse the c i r c u i t case f o r proceedings court's consistent with opinion. R E V E R S E D AND Wise, REMANDED. P . J . , a n d W e l c h , 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.