James R. Mayo v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KM-01975-COA
JAMES R. MAYO
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
10/29/2001
HON. LAMAR PICKARD
COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JOHN DENVER FIKE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: CHARLES W. MARIS
ALEXANDER C. MARTIN
CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE-FIRST
OFFENSE
AFFIRMED: 4/22/2003
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
KING, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
James R. Mayo was originally convicted of DUI-first offense and possession of paraphernalia in
the Justice Court of Copiah County, Mississippi. He appealed this conviction to the Copiah County Circuit
Court which affirmed the justice court's conviction of the DUI charge but dismissed the possession charge
in a de novo bench trial. Aggrieved by his conviction, Mayo has appealed and raised the following issue
which we quote verbatim:
Whether the trial court erred in finding that sufficient probable cause existed for the discovery of
Appellant's Driving Under the Influence violation, where the underlying charge for Possession of Beer,
which led to the revealing search and seizure, was dismissed.
FACTS
¶2.
On June 11, 2000, at approximately 10:30 p.m., deputies with the Copiah County Sheriff's
Department had set up a routine roadblock on Highway 18 in Copiah County to check licenses and look
for alcohol and drugs. When Mayo approached the roadblock, his driver's license was checked. Officer
Tommy Rials indicated that Mayo had an open container of beer in plain view in his vehicle. Mayo was
then asked to pull to the shoulder of the road. Rials stated that Mayo admitted that he had been drinking
and smoking marijuana earlier. Mayo consented to a search of his vehicle. Rials stated that "the paper with
a little marijuana in it" was located inside the vehicle.
¶3.
Mayo was placed under arrest. Rials asked Mayo if he would consent to a series of field sobriety
tests, but Mayo refused. After observing Mayo, Rials determined that he was a little disoriented and had
alcohol on his breath. Rials transported Mayo to the sheriff's department where an intoxilyzer test was
performed. The test results indicated that Mayo's blood-alcohol content was .126 percent at the time of
the test.
¶4.
On June 12, 2000, Mayo was charged with DUI-first offense, possession of beer, and possession
of drug paraphernalia in the Justice Court of Copiah County. On July 13, 2000, Mayo was convicted of
DUI-First Offense and possession of paraphernalia. He was ordered to pay a fine and other court costs.
The beer possession charge was dismissed.
¶5.
Mayo appealed to the Circuit Court of Copiah County where the case was tried de novo. The
circuit court affirmed the DUI conviction, but reversed the paraphernalia possession conviction.
2
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
Whether the trial court erred in finding that sufficient probable cause existed for the
discovery of Appellant's Driving Under the Influence violation, where the underlying charge for
Possession of Beer, which led to the revealing search and seizure, was dismissed.
¶6.
Mayo contends that the trial court erred in finding that probable cause existed for a DUI violation
where the underlying charge of possession of beer was dismissed. Determinations of reasonable suspicion
and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal. Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So.
2d 110 (¶11) (Miss. 1999).
¶7.
Mayo does not question the constitutionality of the roadblock itself, but asserts the police lacked
sufficient probable cause for the subsequent arrest for DUI since the beer possession charge was dismissed.
Upon approaching the vehicle, Officer Rials noticed an open container of alcohol in plain view and asked
Mayo had he been drinking. Mayo indicated that he had in fact been drinking. Mayo was then asked to
step out of the vehicle. There is a long line of precedent in Mississippi which holds the smell of alcohol
emanating from a car is enough to provide an officer with probable cause to make an arrest. Dale v. State,
785 So. 2d 1102 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
¶8.
Officer Rials testified that Mayo stuttered when answering questions, acted a little disoriented, and
had the odor of an "intoxilyzing substance" on his breath. The officer determined that Mayo should be
arrested and given an intoxilyzer test. The trial judge determined that sufficient probable cause existed for
this action stating:
THE COURT: [T]here's been no contest made or [sic] validity of the roadblock and
there's undisputed testimony that Mr. Mayo had the beer in his vehicle. And at that point
we've had, you know, testimony from at least one, maybe two officers, it's difficult to tell,
3
maybe two officers that Mr. Mayo had possession of beer in his vehicle. Now, whether
or not he's guilty of that offense, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, the justice court
for some reason dismissed the cause, and I'm certainly not questioning that or I don't doubt
it, but that does not mean the proof, the facts, and the truth of what happened at the stop
are not valid.
...
THE COURT: I don't believe that anything that's happened in justice court has done
anything to diminish the probable cause that the police officers had to stop Mr. Mayo, and
I find in ruling at this point that there was probable cause to stop Mr. Mayo.
¶9.
Even though the beer possession charge was dismissed, it is not necessary that the information the
officer had at the time of the arrest be sufficient to sustain a conviction of the crime charged, Jones v. State,
461 So. 2d 686, 695 (Miss. 1984), nor does the arrest have to have been on
the charge ultimately brought. Goforth v. City of Ridgeland, 603 So. 2d 323, 326 (Miss. 1992).
¶10.
Officer Rials indicated he observed an open container of beer in Mayo's vehicle, and that Mayo
admitted that he had been drinking. The officer smelled an intoxilyzing substance on Mayo's breath and
noticed that Mayo appeared disoriented. Although the charge of possession of beer was later dismissed,
the presence of beer provided sufficient probable cause to conduct a search of Mayo and his vehicle.
Northington v. State, 749 So. 2d 1099 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). This Court finds no merit in this
issue.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION
OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE-FIRST OFFENSE AND FINE OF $500.00 IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., SOUTHWICK, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.
