175 So.3d 574 (Miss.App. 2015), 2014-KM-01802-COA, Cameron v. State
| Judge | BEFORE IRVING, P.J., MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR, JAMES AND WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR, JAMES AND WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. |
| Parties | MALCOLM CAMERON A/K/A MALCOLM ANDREW CAMERON, APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, APPELLEE |
| Docket Number | 2014-KM-01802-COA |
| Citation | 175 So.3d 574 |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
| Date | 29 September 2015 |
Page 574
Page 575
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/25/2014. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN HUEY EMFINGER. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, FIRST OFFENSE, AND SENTENCED TO FORTY-EIGHT HOURS IN THE CUSTODY OF SHERIFF OF MADISON COUNTY, WITH THE SENTENCE SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS, AND CONVICTED OF CARELESS DRIVING AND SENTENCED TO PAY A $50 FINE.
OPINION
Page 576
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR
[¶1] The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, including unreasonable traffic stops. But if an officer had probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred, the traffic stop is reasonable. Here, Malcolm Cameron never raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to the stop. Still, the record shows the officer pulled over Cameron after watching him swerve in his vehicle. So Cameron's non-asserted argument that the exclusionary rule should bar evidence obtained following the stop fails.
[¶2] We also find Cameron's argument that there was insufficient evidence of his resulting DUI conviction also lacks merit. We thus affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
I. Traffic Stop and Observation Room
[¶3] On March 16, 2013, Officer Ryan Ainsworth received a call from dispatch that a complainant reported a GMC Sierra truck driving carelessly. Officer Ainsworth first saw the truck--later confirmed to be driven by Cameron--in the McDonald's drive-thru off of Highway 51 in Madison, Mississippi. After Cameron went through the drive-thru, he turned right on Highway 51, and then left on Ford Street. As Officer Ainsworth followed Cameron, he noticed his truck swerve to the left on Ford Street, so he pulled Cameron over. Officer Ainsworth immediately " observed the overwhelming odor of an intoxicating beverage emitting from within the vehicle." He also noticed Cameron's eyes were " bloodshot and glassy." Cameron failed a preliminary breath test, so Officer Ainsworth conducted a variety of field sobriety tests. Cameron exhibited several indicators of intoxication on these tests as well.1
[¶4] Officer Ainsworth arrested Cameron for careless driving and driving under the influence (DUI). After booking, Officer Ainsworth sat in the observation room with Cameron for the required twenty minutes before administering the Intoxilyzer 8000 test. But as Officer Ainsworth began to read Cameron the implied-consent warning, Cameron placed a penny in his mouth. After instructing Cameron to remove the penny, he started the twenty-minute clock over. By the end of the second observation period, Cameron refused to cooperate by not blowing hard enough into the intoxilyzer, so the results of the test read " no sample given."
II. Convictions and Appeals
[¶5] Cameron was charged with careless driving and DUI refusal, first offense. After pleading nolo contendere in municipal court, Cameron appealed to county court, which held a de novo trial on the two charges. Officer Ainsworth was the only person to testify. The videos of the traffic stop and the observation room were also admitted. After being found guilty again, Cameron appealed to the circuit
Page 577
court, which affirmed. Cameron again appeals.2
Discussion
I. Probable Cause for the Traffic Stop -- Careless Driving
[¶6] Cameron argues for the first time on appeal that there was no probable cause for the traffic stop.
[¶7] We emphasize that Cameron never challenged the validity of the traffic stop at the trial level. No motion to suppress was filed. Nor did Cameron object to any evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. And he has not argued any evidence was admitted in plain error. So this issue is procedurally barred. See Lawrence v. State, 124 So.3d 91, 94-95 (¶ 10) (Miss. Ct.App. 2013). Aside from this bar, Cameron's lack-of-probable-cause argument fails because there was no Fourth Amendment violation warranting suppression of the evidence.
[¶8] " The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 3[,] [S]ection 23 of the Mississippi Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures." Mosley v. State, 89 So.3d 41, 45 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct.App. 2011) (citing U.S. Const. amend. IV; Miss. Const. art. 3, § 23). " Traffic stops are Fourth-Amendment 'seizures.'" Id. (citing Tate v. State, 946 So.2d 376, 382 (¶ 17) (Miss. Ct.App. 2006)). And the " fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine " makes inadmissible tangible evidence obtained incident to an unlawful search or seizure." Id. at (¶ 13) (citing Marshall v. State, 584 So.2d 437, 438 (Miss. 1991)). So if Cameron's traffic stop was unreasonable, then the evidence obtained as a result of the stop would be subject to this exclusionary rule. See Clack v. City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial