Richard Tolbert v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/26/2011 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-10-0690 Richard Tolbert v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal JOINER, from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CC-10-1405) Judge. Richard Tolbert pleaded of a c o n t r o l l e d substance, Lortab), Tolbert Court i n violation was s e n t e n c e d g u i l t y to the unlawful namely dihydrocodeinone of § 13A-12-212, t o 15 y e a r s ' possession (brand name A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . imprisonment pursuant t o CR-10-0690 the Alabama H a b i t u a l F e l o n y Offender Act. was placed suspended, Tolbert was and ordered he was to pay c o u r t on Tolbert's five costs, years' a $100 sentence probation. crime-victims- c o m p e n s a t i o n a s s e s s m e n t , a $100 f o r e n s i c - t r u s t a s s e s s m e n t , and a $ 1 , 0 0 0 d r u g - d e m a n d - r e d u c t i o n a s s e s s m e n t , t o be r e t a x e d completion the to right of a d r u g - r e h a b i l i t a t i o n course. to appeal suppress resulted We partner, of court's denial reserved of h i s motion the c o n t r o l l e d substance plea and conviction. that This appeal Officer Phillip Harris affirm. Tolbert's testified police the discovery in his guilty ensued. At the c i r c u i t Tolbert upon that suppression on t h e n i g h t hearing, o f N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , he a n d h i s O f f i c e r S a n d y J a c k s o n , w e r e on d u t y a s p l a i n - c l o t h e d officers investigating illegal West Police Precinct that h i s operation of Birmingham. was initiative during activity. Officer Harris parked their Street and department the part end of of a Franklin had Avenue recently in 2 Officer Harris stated police reduce he and department illegal Officer drug Jackson the i n t e r s e c t i o n of an received i n the to that unmarked v e h i c l e near activity larger 2009 said drug area where numerous the Ninth police complaints of CR-10-0690 illegal drug observed parked that a seat, said Cadillac Harris automobile an occupant in the backseat he was and t h a t observed that three driver's stated seat, of the C a d i l l a c . the Officer on t h e p a s s e n g e r the passenger he occupants Officer Harris the positioned he testified with from h i s v e h i c l e . and that Officer Cadillac observed passenger the black 15 t o 20 f e e t he Harris activity. side side of of the vehicle. Officer vehicles stated Harris pull that "would he observed he witnessed side hand-to-hand numerous of the C a d i l l a c transactions and between and t h e f r o n t p a s s e n g e r window o f t h e C a d i l l a c . to Officer Harris, someone from the other vehicles h a n d an unknown amount o f c a s h a n d somebody o u t o f t h e Cadillac stated that beside the passenger those v e h i c l e s According testified would that experience, conducted hand an unknown based he from uniformed p o l i c e on his suspected object narcotics illegal the Cadillac, unit i n the area. the C a d i l l a c then drove a responding police back." Officer training drug deals prompting him and field were being to Officer Harris radio said f r o m t h e s c e n e b u t was p u l l e d unit shortly 3 Harris thereafter a that over by at the CR-10-0690 intersection Harris the of Tenth testified that C a d i l l a c , he Cadillac. Street after observed Officer Harris and Alabama responding Tolbert officers as identified Avenue. the Officer pulled passenger Tolbert over in the as the November 21, i n court passenger. Officer 2 0 0 9 , he behind and Officer said Officer Harris and unmarked that he saw cars then restaurant Officer Harris nearby to a black Officer Jackson Jackson observe. in the cars onto then hand-to-hand O f f i c e r Jackson stated subsequently said that he then pulled were over to occupants with that his l e d him to occurring. radioed the a f t e r t h e C a d i l l a c was 4 scene. transactions transactions that Jackson p u l l e d up narcotics transactions narcotics parked the testified in area. then Officer Cadillac pull several parked o f f Lomb A v e n u e and illegal illegal Officer vehicles he Cadillac. that several congregating conducted that unit on o f t h e C a d i l l a c i n s e q u e n c e , and experience observing police that males that vehicle side someone i n t h e believe observed to O f f i c e r Jackson, the passenger the several stated then testified fast-food saw Jackson According of Jackson a McDonald's Birmingham their Sandy a local Cadillac. pulled over, CR-10-0690 he observed the passenger get Jackson i d e n t i f i e d Tolbert Jackson testified Tolbert got out that of out of the vehicle. Officer i n court. Officer as t h e p a s s e n g e r he identify Tolbert C a d i l l a c a f t e r i t was the did not before pulled over by responded to police. Officer Officer over a Jacorey Harris and Foster Officer Cadillac Deville identified Tolbert testified Jackson's near asked T o l b e r t i f he person o r i f t h e r e was any Officer Foster vehicle and Foster testified g o i n g o n " and him stated Officer pocket illegal he Officer Foster i n t h e v e h i c l e and stated illegal on h i s asked Tolbert then Tolbert i f he Foster Tolbert containing "a could consented bags white to step out to Tolbert perform i n the in to the rock-like the "what a patdown was on Officer patdown. course Tolbert's of 1 Officer c a r r y i n g any weapons. said that, plastic i n the v e h i c l e . h i s request. explained i f T o l b e r t was contraband contraband that he call Avenue. complied with that discovered any radio Tolbert asked to determine Foster he said that that pulled Lomb had he and as t h e p a s s e n g e r t h a t he that of the front substance patdown, left pants and three O f f i c e r F o s t e r d i d not i n d i c a t e whether T o l b e r t responded to these questions. 1 5 CR-10-0690 pills." Officer Foster testified that when p a t d o w n on T o l b e r t , t h e b a g s d i d n o t f e e l Officer Tolbert plastic bags patdown. 2 d i d not contained Officer testify drugs Foster that upon stated Officer Foster testified d i s c o v e r y of the p i l l s : 2 like a gun o r he suspected feeling them that as conducting he then follows knife. that the during the called poison regarding "Q. [PROSECUTOR:] And what h a p p e n e d when p a t t e d h i m down? D i d y o u d i s c o v e r a n y t h i n g ? is "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: O b j e c t i o n , Y o u r H o n o r . l e a d i n g the witness. you She "THE COURT: D o n ' t l e a d . That i s a p r e t t y straightforward question. Go a h e a d and a n s w e r t h e question. "A. [OFFICER FOSTER:] Y e s . "Q. [PROSECUTOR:] What? "A. The d e f e n d a n t h a d p l a s t i c b a g s i n h i s f r o n t l e f t pants pocket. "Q. Okay. And d i d you have what was i n t h e p l a s t i c b a g ? any k n o w l e d g e o f "A. Y e s ' ma'am. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: O b j e c t i o n , Y o u r Honor, u n l e s s he i s - - I d o n ' t t h i n k he i s q u a l i f i e d t o t e s t i f y , i s he, as t o what was i n t h e p l a s t i c b a g , u n l e s s he i s a c h e m i s t . "[PROSECUTOR]: I f you c o u l d l e t me g e t t h e r e . 6 the his CR-10-0690 control arrested The of to discern Tolbert sole issue facts forming Tolbert search r a i s e s on a p p e a l resulting the basis are not i n dispute, Cannon v. S t a t e , of the p i l l s and t h a t i s the l e g a l i t y i n the discovery of h i s conviction. our review searches of the Because t h e i s de n o v o . 985 S o . 2 d 9 6 8 , 970 ( A l a . C r i m . Regarding warrantless See, "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: and s e i z u r e s , Go a h e a d . "Q. [PROSECUTOR:] What was i t t h a t p l a s t i c bag? y o u saw i n "A. [OFFICER FOSTER:] I t was a p l a s t i c b a g containing a white r o c k - l i k e substance and t h r e e pills. "Q. Okay. D i d you have--do you have what t h o s e p i l l s w e r e ? "A. Y e s , ma'am. (R. I called 36-38.) 7 e.g., App. 2007). "'"[t]his court has long held that warrantless searches are per se u n r e a s o n a b l e , u n l e s s t h e y f a l l w i t h i n one of t h e r e c o g n i z e d e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e warrant requirement. See, e.g., Chevere v. S t a t e , 607 S o . 2 d 3 6 1 , 368 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e s e e x c e p t i o n s a r e : (1) p l a i n v i e w ; (2) the he thereafter. the warrantless evidence the composition any i d e a Poison Control-- " CR-10-0690 c o n s e n t ; (3) i n c i d e n t t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t ; (4) h o t p u r s u i t o r e m e r g e n c y ; (5) p r o b a b l e cause coupled w i t h exigent circumstances; (6) stop and f r i s k s i t u a t i o n s ; a n d (7) inventory searches. E x p a r t e H i l l e y , 484 So. 2 d 4 8 5 , 488 ( A l a . 1 985); Chevere, s u p r a , 607 S o . 2 d a t 3 6 8 . " ' " S t a t e v . M i t c h e l l , 722 S o . 2 d 814 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) , q u o t i n g R o k i t s k i v . S t a t e , 715 S o . 2 d 859 ( A l a . C r . App. 1997)." State v. O t w e l l , The in 1 App. (1968). Ex See a l s o parte Warren, recognizing that 783 v. D i c k e r s o n , So. 2d 86, 508 U.S. 90 d o c t r i n e announced i n D i c k e r s o n contraband discovered by t h e o f f i c e r ' s touch a p p a r e n t t o t h e o f f i c e r so t h a t b e f o r e has 366 ( A l a . 2000) during a T e r r y s e a r c h may be s e i z e d i f " t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g n a t u r e detected by a u n d e r T e r r y v. O h i o , 392 U.S. Minnesota (discussing the " p l a i n - f e e l " object 1999). b a g s i n T o l b e r t ' s p o c k e t was d i s c o v e r e d "stop-and-frisk" search (1993); and (Ala. Crim. State argues i n i t i a l l y t h a t t h e c o n t r o l l e d substance the p l a s t i c lawful 733 S o . 2 d 9 5 0 , 952 ... valid of the [is] immediately s e i z i n g i t the o f f i c e r p r o b a b l e cause t o b e l i e v e t h e o b j e c t i s contraband"). We disagree. O f f i c e r F o s t e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when p a t t i n g down T o l b e r t , he d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e o b j e c t i n T o l b e r t ' s p a n t s p o c k e t , 8 CR-10-0690 which was later revealed c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e , was never testified that, to be the a weapon. when bags containing a Moreover, O f f i c e r F o s t e r patting down Tolbert, i t was i m m e d i a t e l y apparent t o him t h a t the o b j e c t i n T o l b e r t ' s pants pocket was pocket. the contraband before Consequently, search case. and See C r i m . App. Davis of the v. neither search and court's judgment seizure or the not Terry nor this case, in "on any valid considered of by r e c o r d t o have been requirements 711, 714 controlled S t a t e , 901 notice the i t from the pants So. substance 2d 759, in 765 this (Ala. 2004). Although rejected removed n e i t h e r T e r r y nor D i c k e r s o n a u t h o r i z e d seizure also he ground, of due and In the may or trial authorized affirm the rationale, court, so o p p o r t u n i t y to respond available, process." ( A l a . 2003). we ground by an Dickerson Ex the to satisfy the parte Kelley, 870 present case, the the trial even long one as i s shown minimum So. search 2d and s e i z u r e were j u s t i f i e d under the search-incident-to-a-lawful- arrest requirement. e x c e p t i o n to the warrant 9 CR-10-0690 I n Woods v . 1996), this Court State, 695 So. 2d 636, 640 (Ala. Crim. App. noted: "'Whether there i s probable cause to merit 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 determined 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 . 2d 527 (1983) . " P r o b a b l e cause e x i s t s where a l l the 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 c o m m i t t e d 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 So. 2d 1 2 9 , 130 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1991).'" Additionally, (Ala. Crim. in App. State 2006), v. Montgomery, this Court 968 So. 2d stated: "'Probable cause to support a w a r r a n t l e s s arrest must exist at the time of the arrest. D a v i s v . S t a t e , 507 So. 2d 1023 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . P r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t s if f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s known t o t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r 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 to b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s u s p e c t has c o m m i t t e d a crime. United S t a t e s v. R o l l i n s , 699 F.2d 530 ( 1 1 t h C i r . ) c e r t . d e n i e d , 464 U.S. 9 3 3 , 104 S. C t . 3 3 5 , 78 L. E d . 2d 305 ( 1 9 8 3 ) "Probable cause to arrest is measured a g a i n s t an o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d a n d , i f t h e s t a n d a r d i s met, i t i s u n n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s u b j e c t i v e l y b e l i e v e t h a t he h a s a b a s i s f o r the a r r e s t . " Cox v . S t a t e , 489 So. 2d 612 ( A l a . C r . App. 1985). The o f f i c e r need not have enough e v i d e n c e or 10 543, 548 CR-10-0690 information to support a conviction i n o r d e r t o have p r o b a b l e cause f o r a r r e s t . Only a probability, not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity i s the standard of probable cause. Stone v. S t a t e , 501 S o . 2 d 562 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) . "Dixon In the Officer cause v. S t a t e , instant 588 S o . 2 d 9 0 3 , 906 case, Officer Harris's J a c k s o n ' s t e s t i m o n y were s u f f i c i e n t to suspect that from the v e h i c l e illegal drug ( A l a . 1991)." testimony to prove distribution i n w h i c h T o l b e r t was a p a s s e n g e r and probable had o c c u r r e d based on t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s : (1) t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n of a street-side p o l i c e department illegal drug gathering at night i n an area where the had r e c e n t l y r e c e i v e d numerous c o m p l a i n t s o f activity; (2) their testimony that they had s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e i n o b s e r v i n g and d e t e c t i n g illegal drug succession Tolbert's transactions; of f u r t i v e vehicle and (3) hand-to-hand their cash and o t h e r v e h i c l e s transactions that e x p e r i e n c e l e d them t o b e l i e v e were i l l e g a l See E x p a r t e T u c k e r , 667 So. 2d 1339, 1345 11 observation of their drug a between training and transactions. ( A l a . 1995) ("The CR-10-0690 fact that an reasonable support So. 723 may deciding cause and States, Tolbert's transactions in and from Officer Harris may 870 police trial light in judge of lens the of h i s p o l i c e facts provide when s e e n t o g e t h e r (quoting Harris's a yield Ornelas v. (1996)). that they and could not suspicious both o f f i c e r s Officer identify transactions that the f r o n t p a s s e n g e r window of the and a a community; l i k e w i s e , a Officer Cadillac, that Kelley, 'A 699-700 reveals occurred ... case deference.'" 690, parte own background facts, police experience his exists.' The create on time they observed the conducted from the Ex f a c t s through the although testimony at the Cadillac. U.S. the to that e v e n t s of the deserve 517 serve recognized particular f o r the h i s t o r i c a l that of have based expertise. Additionally, Tolbert a may cause."); cases views the and inferences United of crime minds probable features experience the probable facts officer for inferences whether the in ("'[O]ur draw distinctive context known suspicion at officer police is a f i n d i n g of 2d views area testified the Officer Tolbert 12 testified that CR-10-0690 they identified Tolbert the as the got out of the C a d i l l a c vehicle Foster. were Tolbert over Officer sufficient shortly Harris's after after and O f f i c e r to establish an illegal possession exchanged. So. drug over deal the c o n t r o l l e d , Foster Tolbert pulled radioed least that T o l b e r t was Tolbert participated exerted substances See B l a c k v . S t a t e , 3d cause and t h a t at and when Tolbert's observations probable or passenger Officer Harris m o r e t h a n an i n n o c e n t p a s s e n g e r in front-seat constructive suspected of being [Ms. C R - 0 9 - 1 0 6 9 , May 2 7 , 2 0 1 1 ] ( A l a .Crim. App. 2011) ("'"Constructive p o s s e s s i o n o f c o n t r a b a n d may be s h o w n b y p r o o f o f d o m i n i o n control over controlled may be established ... property where a vehicle who finding connecting containing s u b s t a n c e may b e j o i n t l y evidence. persons a by the circumstantial are do c o n t r o l of possessed, "Proximity to i l l e g a l they located, or as drugs, mere when with accompanied the 13 ... " A and p o s s e s s i o n well as direct presence on t h e association t h e d r u g s may b e s u f f i c i e n t possession accused contraband. and with incriminating with to support testimony surrounding CR-10-0690 circumstances."'" (citations omitted)). Officer the traveling Foster stopped and searched O f f i c e r H a r r i s and 2d at 1284, vehicle T o l b e r t based Officer the Alabama Jackson. i n which on the Tolbert radio call I n E x p a r t e B o y d , 542 Supreme C o u r t was from So. stated: " I t i s a ' w e l l - r e c o g n i z e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t , where a group of o f f i c e r s i s c o n d u c t i n g an o p e r a t i o n a n d there i s at l e a s t minimal communication among t h e m , [the appropriate course is to] look to the c o l l e c t i v e knowledge of the o f f i c e r s i n d e t e r m i n i n g probable cause.' ... ' [ P ] r o b a b l e c a u s e may emanate from the c o l l e c t i v e knowledge of the p o l i c e , though t h e o f f i c e r who p e r f o r m s t h e a c t o f ... s e a r c h i n g may be f a r l e s s i n f o r m e d . ' " (Citations communication with O f f i c e r s H a r r i s and J a c k s o n , O f f i c e r F o s t e r had p r o b a b l e cause to stop States cause vehicle and had committed a Maryland v. Supreme C o u r t to suspect recent i l l e g a l cause Thus, the Tolbert In omitted.) had based probable his cause to believe (2003), the that crime. Pringle, found 540 U.S. 366 t h a t where the p o l i c e that a vehicle drug d i s t r i b u t i o n , to a r r e s t each on occupant was being used to probable facilitate the p o l i c e a l s o had of the v e h i c l e . 14 had United probable P r i n g l e was the CR-10-0690 f r o n t - s e a t passenger automobile backseat contained passenger. the automobile containing found two o t h e r stopped by p o l i c e . occupants: P o l i c e conducted cocaine. stated a consensual that The C o u r t indicated concluded Court that a likelihood the l i k e l i h o o d of drug t h e p o l i c e t o i n f e r a common e n t e r p r i s e the v e h i c l e , the driver creating probable cause and a baggies the evidence of drug dealing dealing. allowed among t h e o c c u p a n t s o f to arrest Pringle. stated: " H e r e we t h i n k i t was r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h e o f f i c e r t o i n f e r a common e n t e r p r i s e among t h e t h r e e men. The q u a n t i t y o f drugs and cash i n t h e c a r i n d i c a t e d t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f d r u g d e a l i n g , an e n t e r p r i s e t o w h i c h a d e a l e r w o u l d be u n l i k e l y t o a d m i t an i n n o c e n t person with the potential to furnish evidence against him." Pringle, 540 U.S. a t 3 7 3 . The C o u r t further stated: "We t h i n k i t a n e n t i r e l y r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e from these f a c t s t h a t any o r a l l t h r e e o f t h e occupants had knowledge o f , and e x e r c i s e d d o m i n i o n and c o n t r o l o v e r , t h e c o c a i n e . Thus, a r e a s o n a b l e o f f i c e r c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine, e i t h e r s o l e l y or j o i n t l y . " 15 The search of t h a t y i e l d e d $763 c a s h a n d f i v e p l a s t i c i n the search The C o u r t i n an a u t o m o b i l e The CR-10-0690 Pringle, 550-51 Crim. 540 U.S. (quoting App. at 372. Melson See v. a l s o Montgomery, State, 775 So. 2d 968 So. 2d 857 , 879 at (Ala. 1999)): "'The probable c a u s e s t a n d a r d d o e s n o t r e q u i r e an a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r to r u l e out a l l o t h e r p o s s i b l e suspects before he or she detains a particular individual. See S t a t e v . J o h n s o n , 682 So. 2 d 385, 391 ( A l a . 1996) (Maddox, J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) ; s e e a l s o D a r d e n v . S t a t e , 571 So. 2 d 1 2 7 2 , 1279-80 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , q u o t i n g 1 W. L a f a v e , Search a n d S e i z u r e § 3 . 2 ( e ) a t 5 9 1 - 9 2 n.148 (2d e d . 1987) ("'If the f u n c t i o n of a r r e s t were m e r e l y to p r o d u c e persons i n c o u r t f o r purposes of t h e i r p r o s e c u t i o n , then a more-probable-than-not-test would have considerable appeal. But there is also an i n v e s t i g a t i v e f u n c t i o n w h i c h i s s e r v e d by t h e m a k i n g of a r r e s t s . ' " (Footnote omitted.)).'" In probable the as noted, cause to conclude t h a t illegal taking place and Officer Tolbert distribution Officer was that Foster permitted At the case, Officer Foster drug d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t h e a u t o m o b i l e i n w h i c h T o l b e r t was therefore believe and present had of Foster had a also committed the crimes probable cause Officer Foster 16 to arrest was traveling, probable of c o n t r o l l e d substance. to perform a search time had had cause to possession Accordingly, Tolbert, and he i n c i d e n t to a l a w f u l a r r e s t . discovered the controlled CR-10-0690 substance Tolbert 1207 i n Tolbert's under arrest. (Ala. Crim. pocket, he In Blake App. 2000), this had v. not f o r m a l l y State, Court placed 772 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 0 , stated the following: "A w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h p r e c e d i n g a r r e s t i s 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, so l o n g as p r o b a b l e cause t o a r r e s t e x i s t e d b e f o r e t h e s e a r c h and t h e a r r e s t and s e a r c h a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y contemporaneous. R a w l i n g s v . K e n t u c k y , 448 U.S. 9 8 , 1 1 1 , 100 S. C t . 2 5 5 6 , 65 L. E d . 2 d 633 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 , 2 3 5 , 94 S. C t . 4 67 , 38 L. E d . 2 d 427 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ; C h i m e l v . C a l i f o r n i a , 395 U.S. 7 5 2 , 89 S. C t . 2 0 3 4 , 23 L. E d . 2 d 685 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . The search of Blake's person (and t h e s e i z u r e o f t h e c o c a i n e from h i s p o c k e t ) was, t h e r e f o r e , v a l i d as a search i n c i d e n t t o e s t a b l i s h m e n t of probable cause to a r r e s t , because the o f f i c e r s had probable cause to a r r e s t Blake f o r p o s s e s s i o n of marijuana before he was e v e n p a t t e d down b y O f f i c e r S p e a r s , a n d t h e arrest and search were sufficiently contemporaneous." Because O f f i c e r F o s t e r had probable the time he performed the search cause t o a r r e s t T o l b e r t a t and because he T o l b e r t i m m e d i a t e l y upon d i s c o v e r i n g t h e c o n t r o l l e d the search lawful U.S. a t 111 We n o t e t h a t a s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t a broader search than a s t o p - a n d - f r i s k Terry search. permits 3 Blake, supra. See valid also 3 17 as incident substance, to a arrest. and s e i z u r e were arrested Rawlings 448 CR-10-0690 ("Where t h e f o r m a l a r r e s t challenged it search particularly rather than Although Foster of of a p e t i t i o n e r ' s important person, we do n o t b e l i e v e that the search preceded the arrest vice versa."). the intended Tolbert f o l l o w e d q u i c k l y on t h e h e e l s o f t h e record appears to perform f o r weapons a Terry i n order to indicate search to that limited protect Officer to a search h i s and other "The d i s t i n c t i o n i n p u r p o s e , c h a r a c t e r , a n d e x t e n t b e t w e e n a s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o an a r r e s t a n d a l i m i t e d s e a r c h f o r weapons i s t h a t a s e a r c h f o r weapons i n the absence of probable c a u s e t o a r r e s t must be l i m i t e d t o what i s n e c e s s a r y t o d i s c o v e r weapons t h a t m i g h t be u s e d t o h a r m t h e o f f i c e r o r o t h e r s n e a r b y ; a s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o an a r r e s t , on t h e o t h e r hand, can 'involve a relatively extensive e x p l o r a t i o n of the person.' M a t h e w s v . S t a t e , 534 So. 2 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) " Vinson v. S t a t e , 843 S o . 2 d 2 2 1 , 227 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). " ' [ I ] n the case of a l a w f u l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t [ , ] a f u l l s e a r c h o f t h e p e r s o n i s n o t o n l y an 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 o f t h e F o u r t h Amendment, but i s also a "reasonable" search under that Amendment.' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. R o b i n s o n , 414 U.S. 218, 2 3 5 , 94 S. C t . 4 6 7 , 477 , 38 L. E d . 2 d 427 (1973)." Matthews v. S t a t e , 1988). 534 So. 2d 1129, 1131-32 18 (Ala. Crim. App. CR-10-0690 officers' safety, irrelevant. authorized therefore from As to the v. noted search above, Tolbert subjective O f f i c e r Foster and seizure pants pocket was So. 587 , 590 Gargus, 855 intentions was 2d of a c o n t r o l l e d legally (Ala. and substance permissible. n.2 are objectively i n c i d e n t to a l a w f u l a r r e s t , discovery Tolbert's State Officer Foster's Crim. See App. 2003): " G a r g u s a r g u e s , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d n o t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e s e a r c h was v a l i d as a search i n c i d e n t to a l a w f u l a r r e s t because, she says, ' [ t ] h e r e i s no t e s t i m o n y i n t h e r e c o r d from t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r t h a t he a t a n y t i m e considered t h i s search a search i n c i d e n t to a l a w f u l a r r e s t . ' ( G a r g u s ' s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f a t p. 15.) However, i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t ' " [ a ] s 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 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 , the o f f i c e r [ ' ] s s u b j e c t i v e i n t e n t in doing i t i s i r r e l e v a n t . " ' Woods v . S t a t e , 695 So. 2d 636, 640 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 996), quoting H u t c h e r s o n v . S t a t e , 677 So. 2d 1174 , 1184 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 4 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 677 So. 2d 1205 (Ala. 1996)." Accordingly, Tolbert's court is motion the to circuit court suppress. The affirmed. AFFIRMED. 19 did not judgment err of in denying the circuit CR-10-0690 Welch, P.J., J., concurs and i n the K e l l u m and result. 20 Burke, J J . , concur. Windom,

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.