Carlisle v. State, 6 Div. 987
Decision Date | 30 June 1987 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 987 |
Citation | 533 So.2d 645 |
Parties | Richard Lancaster CARLISLE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Andrew LaPlante, Bessemer, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jean Williams Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Richard Lancaster Carlisle, was convicted of a violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act, § 20-2-70, Code of Alabama (1975), and sentenced to twenty-two years' imprisonment.
Officer Reuben Wilkinson of the Fairfield Police Department testified that, while he was on patrol at approximately 5:00 p.m., he observed the appellant carrying a paper sack and walking down the street. Wilkinson testified that he was driving at a rate of approximately five to ten miles per hour and, during his observation of the appellant, came within 75 to 100 feet of him at the closest point. The appellant looked over his shoulder, back in the vicinity of Officer Wilkinson, several times and then dropped the sack onto a median between the street and the sidewalk. He continued walking and turned down a side street. Officer Wilkinson picked up the sack and observed a brown leather bag inside, whereupon he radioed for assistance. He stopped the appellant, patted him down, and placed him in the back of his patrol car. Shortly thereafter, Officer Wilkinson opened the leather bag and found a .32 caliber revolver, cigarette papers, a brown glove, small manila envelopes, a small envelope containing a white powdery substance, and a cigarette package filled with four small bags of the white powdery substance. He then took the appellant to the police station.
The appellant argues that there was no probable cause to arrest him in that he was walking "in a place where it is not unusual for people to be walking, and merely dropped a bag and kept walking, before he was arrested." However, this is a case where the existence of probable cause need not be determined, because the act of dropping the bag to the median constituted an abandonment. United States v. Speed, 388 A.2d 892, 893 (D.C.App.1978).
City of St. Paul v. Vaughn, 306 Minn. 337, 237 N.W.2d 365, 370-71 (1975).
In Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960), the United States Supreme Court held that a warrantless seizure of abandoned property by the police does not violate the Fourth Amendment. See also Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924).
United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859, 104 S.Ct. 184, 78 L.Ed.2d 163 (1983). See also State v. Reed, 284 So.2d 574, 575 (La.1973).
The appellant, in a similar case, People v. Sylvester, 43 Ill.2d 325, 253 N.E.2d 429 (1969), placed a brown paper bag containing drugs on the curb of a public street immediately before entering a police car. The Illinois Supreme Court stated:
People v. Martinez, 257 Cal.App.2d, 270, 64 Cal.Rptr. 666 [1967]; United States v. Clark , 294 Fed.Supp. 1108." 43 Ill.2d 325, at 327-28, 253 N.E.2d 429, at 430."
See also, People v. Hoskins, 101 Ill.2d 209, 78 Ill.Dec. 107, 461 N.E.2d 941, 946, cert. denied, Hoskins v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 840, 105 S.Ct. 142, 83 L.Ed.2d 81 (1984).
W. LaFave, Search and Seizure (2d ed 1987), § 2.6(b) at 466.
"Only if the abandonment had been precipitated by an illegal detention would the property been rendered inadmissible evidence." Gipson v. State, 459 N.E.2d 366, 367 (Ind.1984). United States v. Koessel, 706 F.2d 271, 274 (8th Cir.1983). State v. Andrishok, 434 So.2d 389, 391 (La.1983).
W. LaFave, supra, at 473-74, quoting Mascolo, The Role of Abandonment in the Law of Search and Seizure: An Application of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State
...suppress and correctly overruled his objections to the admission of the challenged evidence. As this court stated in Carlisle v. State, 533 So.2d 645, 647-48 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied " 'The distinction between abandonment in the proper[ty] law sense and abandonment in the constitutional ......
-
Martin v. State
...of privacy in it that they might have had."'" Thompson v. State, 680 So.2d 1014, 1016 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (quoting Carlisle v. State, 533 So.2d 645, 647 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), quoting in turn United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859, 104 S.Ct. 184, 7......
-
Jones v. White
...be considered for sentence enhancement under the HFOA. Webb v. State, 539 So.2d 343, 351 (Ala.Crim.App.1987); see Carlisle v. State, 533 So.2d 645, 649 (Ala.Crim.App.1987) (This case was remanded for new sentencing because a conviction exhibit did not contain the authenticating certificate ......
-
Hawkins v. State, 194-83
...disposing of the property must not have been the result of an illegal detention or unlawful police conduct." [Citing Carlisle v. State, 533 So.2d 645 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); United States v. Beck, supra; United States v. Koessel, 706 F.2d 271 (8th Cir.1983) These cases, along with our recent op......