Ex parte Usrey
Citation | 527 So.2d 732 |
Parties | Ex parte Margie Lee USREY (Re: Margie Lee Usrey v. State). 85-1417. |
Decision Date | 27 March 1987 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Betty C. Love, Talladega, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Certiorari was granted in this case to consider (1) the conclusion of the Court of Criminal Appeals that the warrantless search of this defendant's residence was executed under exigent circumstances; and (2) that court's conclusion that six cartridges taken from the body of the victim were admissible. As to the first issue, as discussed hereinafter, we remand the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration. As to the second issue, we find the result reached by the Court of Criminal Appeals to be correct.
Although the facts pertinent to the search and seizure issue appear in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, they are reproduced here as an aid to understanding our conclusions:
(Emphasis added.) Usrey v. State, 527 So.2d at 727 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). These facts were conceded as "substantially correct" by the State.
In its initial opinion upon submission, the Court of Criminal Appeals referred to the following statement contained in the State's brief before that court:
" "
527 So.2d at 728. That court agreed with that conclusion, without citation of additional authority.
On rehearing, that court, considering this issue again, quoted from the petitioner's brief:
" "
527 So.2d at 730. In analyzing this argument, the Court of Criminal Appeals commented, again without citation of authority:
(Emphasis added.) 527 So.2d 730.
Thus, on rehearing, the Court of Criminal Appeals found an exigent circumstance in the great "difficult[y]" of the officers, found "almost certainly," to obtain a search warrant because the search itself occurred soon after 8:04 p.m., instead of during daylight (assuming there was a complete absence of daylight at that time on May 12, 1983). In reaching this decision, the Court of Criminal Appeals referred to no additional facts either supported by the record or argued by the State.
Nevertheless, that court, in reaching such a conclusion, apparently conceded that petitioner's argument concerning the search and seizure, and abandoned its original concurrence in the State's position to the effect that the exigent circumstance permitting the search lay in the protection of the evidence. Indeed, the facts as found by the Court of Criminal Appeals suggest that there was no risk of the evidence being removed or otherwise destroyed.
In its argument before this Court, the State now takes a position unlike its initial position. It now argues that the exigent circumstances permitting the questioned search and seizure lay in the danger that others might be harmed: "For all he [Officer Marty Batson] knew, someone could have been hurt and in need of medical attention." Contending that Officer Batson's entry was justified as having been made under exigent circumstances, the State argues that his discovery of all of the other evidence later taken and photographed was admissible under the "plain view" doctrine.
Of course, on certiorari this Court must review the case on the facts found by the lower court, and those facts are expressly conceded by the State in its brief. Under those facts, quoted hereinabove, Officer Batson, upon entering the trailer, secured the scene, and thereupon was under no fear or apprehension that some unidentified person was present in the trailer. Upon securing the scene, Officer Batson reported to his station, requested other officers, together with a photographer, and, subsequently, after the scene had been secured, participated in the search described above without benefit of a search warrant.
Commenting upon what it described as the "fundamental guarantee" of the Fourth Amendment ( ), the United States Supreme Court, in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), quoted from Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635, 6 S.Ct. 524, 535, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886):
It then referred to the "per se" rule of the Fourth Amendment applied by Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958); and United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951); and McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Spears
... ... brief, together with an enclosure, the same being dated October 14, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Court has carefully read the cases of Margie Lee Usrey vs. State, 527 So.2d 725, 527 So.2d 732, 527 So.2d 741, and Bobby James King vs. State, 521 So.2d 1042, and has reviewed the cases of Lillian ... Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392-93, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (quoted in Ex parte Usrey, 527 So.2d 732, 736 (Ala.1987)) ... " '[T]he courts rather readily recognize that the police may make a warrantless entry ... ...
-
Ex parte Harris
... ... 385, 390, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)(rejecting a "murder scene exception" created by the Supreme Court of Arizona to the requirement of obtaining a warrant). See also Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17, 22, 105 S.Ct. 409, 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984)(applying Mincey); Ex parte Usrey, 527 So.2d 732 (Ala.1987) (holding that once the scene was secure, exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant); A.A.G. v. State, 668 So.2d 122, 128 (Ala.Crim.App.1995)(holding that the police "may conduct a warrantless search if they believe that ... ...
-
Strange v. City of Tuscaloosa
... ... Strange would be illegal ... "Warrantless searches and seizures are 'per se unreasonable.' Ex parte Hilley, 484 So.2d 485, 488 (Ala.1985), citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 585 (1967). To validate ... See, e.g., Ex parte Usrey, 527 So.2d 732 (Ala.1987) (police received report that someone had been shot inside their house); State v. Spears, 560 So.2d 1145 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) ... ...
-
Usrey v. State
... ... Usrey v. State, 527 So.2d 725 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). The Alabama Supreme Court remanded this cause on the basis of an issue involving the warrantless search of the appellant's residence. Ex parte Usrey, 527 So.2d 732 (Ala.1987). Although this court determined that the ... warrantless search was proper under the exigent circumstances exception, the Alabama Supreme Court determined that that exception was inapplicable to the facts of this case, citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 ... ...