White v. State
Citation | 550 So.2d 1081 |
Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (Re Vanessa Rose WHITE v. STATE of Alabama). 88-1237. |
Decision Date | 22 September 1989 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Petition for writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals (3 Div. 835).
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, No. CC87 1153 PR.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Stacey S. Houston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Dennis Pierson, Montgomery, for respondent.
WRIT DENIED.
With all due deference to the members of this Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals appears to me to be an effort to "refine and elaborate the requirements of 'reasonable suspicion' in this case [and create] unnecessary difficulty in dealing with one of the relatively simple concepts embodied in the Fourth Amendment." 1 In my opinion, the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals will severely cripple law enforcement investigations of criminal activity based on information furnished by a "citizen's tip" and will have a chilling effect on the right of police officers to investigate reports of criminal activity called in by citizens. 2
This is a case of first impression, involving an issue of national concern--the right of police, relying on an anonymous tip, to make an investigatory stop of an automobile. Because of the importance of this issue, this Court should at least grant the writ of certiorari and review the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals, which I believe is wrong. The Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion is admittedly based upon that court's application of the old, discarded Aguilar 3 standard, which the Supreme Court of the United States has specifically said was "hypertechnical and divorced from 'the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' " Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 732, 104 S.Ct. 2085, 2087, 80 L.Ed.2d 721 (1984). (Emphasis added.) Also, in considering this case, the Court of Criminal Appeals was without the benefit of the latest expression of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989).
The Court of Criminal Appeals compounds its error by citing the conclusions of a "legal technician," 4 who bases his position upon a dissenting opinion from an Idaho case decided 10 years before Upton was decided, and 15 years before Sokolow was decided. 5
Even more troubling is the reliance by the Court of Criminal Appeals upon a dissenting opinion in Jernigan v. Louisiana, 446 U.S. 958, 100 S.Ct. 2930, 64 L.Ed.2d 816 (1980). In the Jernigan dissent, the dissenting Justice merely stated that he would grant certiorari because the federal and state courts were divided on the issue of whether an anonymous tip may furnish reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk. In my opinion, the Supreme Court, just one year after Jernigan, set out the test for a "stop and frisk" case in United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981), a case cited, but not followed, by the Court of Criminal Appeals in its opinion, White v. State, 550 So.2d 1074, 1076 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). The Supreme Court said in Cortez:
449 U.S. at 418, 101 S.Ct. at 695.
Even a cursory reading of the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals shows that that court "weighed [the evidence] in terms of [a] library analysis by scholars," rather than "as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement," thereby refusing to follow the guideline set out in Cortez. The Court of Criminal Appeals has obviously applied a "hypertechnical" examination of the facts, and has dealt in "possibilities" rather than "probabilities." 6
It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the Court of Criminal Appeals has, in effect, resurrected the Aguilar standard in a "stop and frisk" setting by citing a dissenting opinion to support its conclusion, and engaging in the "library analysis" condemned by Cortez, supra.
The "hypertechnical" approach called for in Aguilar was specifically abandoned by the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), in search and seizure cases, where probable cause is required, and in that case a "totality of the circumstances" test was established. In Gates, the Court stated:
462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. at 2332.
In Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 104 S.Ct. 2085, 80 L.Ed.2d 721 (1984), the Court more explicitly stated:
Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. at 732, 104 S.Ct. at 2087.
In Upton and Gates, the Court repudiated the excessively technical analysis formulated in Aguilar and, in essence, adopted the approach espoused by Justice Black in his dissent in Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971).
Justice Black proposed a common-sense approach that stressed guarding against the real life probabilities of an infringement on individual rights, not the technical possibility that individual rights might be infringed in some hypothetical situation divorced from reality. I believe that such a common-sense approach is called for in the present case.
The proper test for determining the required reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop is the totality-of-the-circumstances test. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989).
In Sokolow, the Court applied the "totality of the circumstances" test to an investigative stop in a factual setting similar to that presented here. In that case the Court said:
490 U.S. at ----, 109 S.Ct. at 1585.
It appears to me that under this test, the police were justified in stopping the defendant's car in the present case. The anonymous caller in this case specified the defendant's place of departure, the car she would be driving, and her destination. All of these facts were corroborated. During the course of the investigation, the police advised the suspect of the substance of the tip. It appears from the State's statement of facts that the defendant consented to the search of her car and willingly gave the police the combination to her attache case which allegedly contained the contraband.
As the Supreme Court said in Sokolow:
490 U.S. at ----, 109 S.Ct. at 1587.
Because I believe the Court of Criminal Appeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doggett v. State
...reliable informants under Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), abrogation recognized by White v. State, 550 So.2d 1081 (Ala.1989); Brooks v. United States, 416 F.2d 1044 (1969), Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; Davis v. State, [], 333 So.2d 168 [ (Ala.Cr.App.......
-
BROWN v. U.S., 86-1276
...In White, as in this case, there was a gap in the police testimony regarding the relevant times. 110 S.Ct. at 2417. 21. State v. White, 550 So.2d 1074 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 550 So.2d 1081 22. The White tip included specific, factual data from which " 'veracity', 'reliability' and 'ba......
-
Williams v. State
...v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). In White v. State, 550 So.2d 1074 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 550 So.2d 1081 (Ala.1989), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 834, 107 L.Ed.2d 830 (1990), this Court found that an anonymous telephone tip did not provide the ......
-
Alabama v. White
...550 So.2d 1074 (1989). The Supreme Court of Alabama denied the State's petition for writ of certiorari, two justices dissenting. 550 So.2d 1081 (1989). Because of differing views in the state and federal courts over whether an anonymous tip may furnish reasonable suspicion for a stop, we gr......