City of Albany v. Crawford
| Decision Date | 24 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | CITY OF ALBANY, Appellant, v. James Michael CRAWFORD, Respondent. 55388. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David Parman, Albano, for Appellant.
Scott Ross, Maryville, for Respondent.
The city of Albany appeals the circuit court's decision to suppress evidence that 19-year-old James Michael Crawford possessed beer in violation of its ordinance prohibiting anyone under the age of 21 from possessing alcoholic beverages. Because the city did not prove an essential element of the crime, we affirm the circuit court's judgment finding Crawford not guilty.
On June 13, 1997, Officer Charles E. Moore, of Albany's police department, saw Crawford driving a car in Albany. Moore wanted to talk to Crawford about a shoplifting incident, so he followed Crawford to a convenience store parking lot. Moore parked his car behind Crawford's car and asked Crawford whether he was willing to speak to him about the incident. Crawford agreed, and the two got into Moore's police car.
Moore told Crawford that he did not have to speak with him and that he was not in custody. Moore noticed an odor of alcohol coming from Crawford, and he asked him whether he had been drinking. Crawford denied drinking, but he said that he had been with other people who had been drinking. Moore asked him for permission to search his car, but Crawford refused. Moore asked whether he was refusing because he knew that an alcoholic beverage was in the vehicle, and Crawford indicated that it was.
Moore asked Crawford to perform some tests for sobriety. Crawford passed the tests. Moore said that "based upon the odor of alcohol and there being some indication of effects of alcohol upon his person, I then indicated that I would proceed with dealing with the alcohol being in his vehicle and his being in possession while under age." Moore asked Crawford where in his car the alcoholic beverage was, and Crawford told him that it was behind the driver's seat. Moore walked up to Crawford's vehicle and, using a flashlight, saw a 24-can case of beer behind the driver's seat and another 12-bottle pack of beer on the back seat.
Moore said that until he saw the beer, Crawford was free to leave. He said that he had not arrested Crawford or advised him of his basic constitutional rights. After Moore saw the beer, he arrested Crawford and informed him of his basic constitutional rights. Authorities charged him with violating a city ordinance prohibiting persons under the age of 21 from possessing an intoxicating liquor. Crawford was convicted of the offense in municipal court, and he obtained a trial de novo in circuit court.
Before trial in circuit court, Crawford filed a motion to suppress from evidence any statements made by Crawford to Moore during the stop and the beer taken from Crawford's car. Crawford contended that Officer Moore had no reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop of Crawford, that the incident about which Moore wanted to speak with Crawford was not a felony justifying a stop, and that Moore did not observe any violation of the law before stopping Crawford. Crawford alleged that any evidence obtained as a result of the illegal detention was "fruit of the poisonous tree" which had to be suppressed.
The circuit court reserved ruling on Crawford's motion until hearing evidence at trial. The city's only evidence was Moore's testimony and the beer he seized from Crawford's car. Crawford presented no evidence. The circuit court granted Crawford's motion to suppress and declared him to be not guilty. The city appeals.
We need not decide the points raised by the city. This is because, whether or not the city is correct in its contention that Moore's seizing beer from Crawford's car...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...elements of a crime without relying on a defendant's extrajudicial admissions, statements or confessions." City of Albany v. Crawford, 979 S.W.2d 574, 575 (Mo. App. 1998). Although the fact that the message was written in blood makes the evidence potentially more prejudicial than other, les......
-
State, v. Smith
...elements of a crime without relying on a defendant's extrajudicial admissions, statements or confessions." City of Albany v. Crawford, 979 S.W.2d 574, 575 (Mo. App. 1998). Although the fact that the message was written in blood makes the evidence potentially more prejudicial than other, les......
-
State v. Crawford
...at trial to sustain his conviction. As support for the foregoing proposition, Appellant also refers this Court to City of Albany v. Crawford, 979 S.W.2d 574 (Mo.App. 1998), involving a 19-year-old man who was charged and found guilty of violating a city ordinance prohibiting persons under t......
-
State v. Howell
...assault in the third degree without relying on his extrajudicial admissions, statements, or confessions. He cites City of Albany v. Crawford, 979 S.W.2d 574, 575 (Mo.App.1998), in support of this proposition. Mr. Howell misconstrues City of Albany. In that case, this court held that the Sta......