Castleberry v. State
| Decision Date | 23 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | Nos. F-82-227,F-82-228,s. F-82-227 |
| Parties | Timothy R. CASTLEBERRY and, Nicholas Raineri, Appellants, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Consolidated Appeals from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Charles L. Owens and Homer Smith, District Judges.
Timothy R. Castleberry and Nicholas Raineri, appellants, were each convicted of two (2) counts of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute. The trial court sentenced appellant Castleberry to ten (10) years' imprisonment plus a five thousand dollar ($5,000) fine for Count 1 and seven (7) years' imprisonment for Count 2, with the sentences to run concurrently, and appellant Raineri to nine (9) years' imprisonment plus a five thousand dollar ($5,000) fine for the first count and seven (7) years' imprisonment Charles Foster Cox, Jr., Oklahoma City, for appellants.
for the second count, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant Castleberry was also convicted of a separate count of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and sentenced to eight (8) years' imprisonment. The judgments and sentences are appealed and REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Hugh A. Manning, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.
Timothy R. Castleberry and Nicholas Raineri, appellants, were charged with two (2) counts each of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-81-2678. The jury found the appellants guilty on both counts, and assessed punishment for Raineri at nine (9) years' imprisonment and a fine of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for Count 1 and seven (7) years' imprisonment plus a five thousand dollar ($5,000) fine for Count 2; and, for Castleberry, ten (10) years' imprisonment plus a fine of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for Count 1 and seven (7) years' imprisonment plus a five thousand dollar ($5,000) fine for Count 2. The trial court sentenced the appellants accordingly, additionally ordering the sentences to run concurrently and suspending the fine for Count 2 as to both appellants.
Appellant Castleberry was separately convicted of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Cocaine, in Case No. CRF-82-2676 in the Oklahoma County District Court. The trial court sentenced him to eight (8) years' imprisonment. The appeals from the judgments and sentences are consolidated since the same factual circumstances are involved in each case.
At approximately noontime on June 9, 1981, Oklahoma City Police Officer R.D. Taylor received a telephone call from a previously unknown confidential informant who told him that two men, one named Castleberry, were staying in Room 113 of a motel in Oklahoma City, driving a blue Thunderbird with Florida license plates and carrying various narcotics in blue suitcases. The informant also gave physical descriptions of the men to the officer.
Officer Taylor proceeded immediately to the location, observed a vehicle matching the informant's description in front of the specified room, and discovered, from the motel clerk, that a man named Castleberry was registered in that room. He then returned to his car, positioned some five parking spaces from the other vehicle, and waited for back-up assistance to arrive. After several minutes, Officer Taylor observed the appellants emerge from the room and put several suitcases that matched the informant's description into the trunk of the car. At this point, Officer Taylor announced himself as a police officer, approached the car with his badge in one hand and his weapon in the other, and told the appellants to place their hands on the car. Raineri did as ordered, but Castleberry hastily closed the trunk lid and threw a small white object into the car. During a struggle which ensued between Officer Taylor and Castleberry, Castleberry reached up, locked the car door and shut it.
At this point, Officer Citty arrived and opened the trunk of the car with keys Officer Taylor had removed from the door of the car. The officers opened the suitcases, found narcotics and placed the appellants under arrest. Officer Citty then searched the interior of the car and discovered a white Band-Aid box which contained a substance later determined to be cocaine.
Appellants' sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in overruling their motion to suppress, thereby admitting evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest, search and seizure. The Fourth Amendment of our federal constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967).
The exceptions are jealously and carefully drawn, and there must be a showing by those who seek exemption that the exingencies of the situation made that course imperative. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). Thus, it is incumbent on the State to show why the warrantless search of the car and its contents was permissible in the case at bar.
The State first contends that the search was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest. Appellants challenge both the legality of the arrest and the scope of the search.
Although Officer Taylor testified that he did not arrest the appellants until after the suitcases were opened, the appellants were not free to move after the officer advanced toward them with revolver drawn and ordered them to place their hands on the car. This Court has held that when an officer restrains the individual's freedom of movement, that person is under arrest. Wallace v. State, 620 P.2d 410 (Okl.Cr.1980), Castellano v. State, 585 P.2d 361 (Okl.Cr.1978). Under the circumstances, the appellants in the present case were under arrest from the moment Officer Taylor approached them and announced his identity.
Appellants submit that the arrest was unlawful because Officer Taylor did not at that time have probable cause to make it. The Oklahoma statutes allow a warrantless arrest if the officer has reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed by the person arrested. 22 O.S.1981, § 196. If at the time of arrest the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that an offense had been or was being committed, probable cause is established and the arrest is lawful. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964), Greene v. State, 508 P.2d 1095 (Okl.Cr.1973).
In this case, appellants argue that the officer had no basis for judging his informant to be reliable or the information trustworthy. We disagree. In Grimes v. State, 528 P.2d 1397 (Okl.Cr.1974), this Court stated that an informant's trustworthiness could be established if independent facts within the officer's knowledge corroborated the information. Here, the information was sufficiently corroborated as the only detail not confirmed before the arrest was the presence of narcotics in the suitcases, an allegation Officer Taylor could not lawfully verify before the arrest under the given circumstances.
The search made subsequent to the arrest, however, cannot be justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest, for it far exceeded the permissible bounds of such a search, that is, the area within the arrestee's immediate control from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California v. Acevedo
...61 L.Ed.2d 235] . . . (1979); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 [97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538] . . . (1977)." Castleberry v. State, 678 P.2d 720, 724 (Okla.1984). This Court affirmed by an equally-divided court. 471 U.S. 146, 105 S.Ct. 1859, 85 L.Ed.2d 112 In the case the Court decides......
-
Gomez v. State, F-2005-526.
...... L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), to hold that if probable cause justifies search of lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies search of every part of vehicle that may conceal object of search including all containers within vehicle without showing of individual probable cause for each container); 7 Castleberry v. State, 1984 OK CR 30, ¶ 14, 678 P.2d 720, 723 ("[i]f an officer has probable cause to believe there is contraband somewhere in the car, but he does not know exactly where, he may search the entire car as well as any containers found therein"). When the officer found the open container and ......
-
Turner v. City of Lawton
...Crim v. State, 78 Okl. Cr. 153, 145 P.2d 444-45 (1944).28 Gore v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 394, 218 P. 545, 550-51 (1923). Castleberry v. State, 678 P.2d 720, 722 (Okla. Crim.1984). See Ashbrook v. State, 92 Okl. 287-88, 219 P. 347, 349 (1923); and Annot., "Admissibility of evidence obtained by il......
-
Stanfield v. State
...of an ongoing drug investigation, and linked to an address whose occupant had numerous visitors at all hours); Castleberry v. State, 678 P.2d 720 (Okla.Cr.App.1984), judgment aff'd Oklahoma v. Castleberry, 471 U.S. 146, 105 S.Ct. 1859, 85 L.Ed.2d 112, 53 U.S.L.W. 4450 (1985) (tip included d......
-
The automobile exception swallows the rule: Florida v. White.
...(54) Id. at 393. (55) See Katz, supra note 2, at 380. (56) Oklahoma v. Castleberry, 471 U.S. 146 (1985). (57) Castleberry v. State, 678 P.2d 720 (Okla. Crim. App. (58) United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 806 (1982). (59) 469 U.S. 478 (1985). (60) Id. at 480-81. (61) Id. (62) Id. at 481. (6......