Ex parte Warren
Decision Date | 08 September 2000 |
Citation | 783 So.2d 86 |
Parties | Ex parte George Ester WARREN, Jr. (In re George Ester Warren, Jr. v. State.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Margaret Y. Brown, Auburn, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Beth Slate Poe, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
A jury convicted George Ester Warren, Jr., of possession of cocaine, in violation of § 13A-12-212, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court sentenced Warren to eight years' imprisonment. Warren appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. On appeal, he argued that the cocaine, which had been contained in a small plastic container in his pants pocket, was seized in violation of his rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, therefore, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the cocaine evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Warren v. State, 783 So.2d 74 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). This Court granted certiorari review to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the trial court had properly denied Warren's motion to suppress. We reverse and remand.
John Toney, a captain in the narcotics division of the Opelika Police Department, testified that on the afternoon of August 14, 1996, he received a telephone call from a confidential informant. Toney stated that he not only recognized the informant's voice, but also recognized the telephone number that was shown on a screen at his telephone. He said he had talked with the informant approximately seven or eight times in the previous six to eight weeks. On this occasion, the informant gave Toney his name. Toney testified that none of the information received previously from the informant had led to arrests, but that the informant had always offered reliable information.
The informant told him, he said, that the informant was watching a group of black males standing around a white car, and that the men were buying and selling drugs. The informant provided a street address, a description of the car, and a partial license plate number of the car (all digits except the last). The informant did not, however, give any physical description of the men standing around the car, except to say that there were approximately four or five of them, that they were black, and that they looked like the "usual drug dealers." Within five minutes, Toney relayed the information to Detective Greg Wilson, a plainclothes detective in the narcotics division. Toney instructed Wilson to proceed to the scene to investigate. Wilson, accompanied by two other detectives, drove to the scene in an unmarked police car. Wilson testified that when he got to the address given by the informant, he saw several black males standing around a white car that matched the description and that had a license plate with a number that matched the partial tag number given by the informant. Wilson radioed for assistance, he said, and then he and the other two detectives got out of their car and approached the men standing around the white car. Wilson said that he and the other detectives identified themselves as police officers and began "field interviews" of the men, which consisted of asking their names and asking to see their identification. Warren was one of the men standing around the car, and he cooperated with the officers' requests. At that point, an additional police officer arrived in response to Wilson's request for assistance. The officers then decided to pat the men down for weapons. Wilson testified that the purpose of the patdown was "[t]o look for weapons or anything that could be used to harm one of the officers or detectives that were there at the scene," and that to conduct a patdown was standard procedure in this kind of situation.
Warren contends that he was patted down by one officer, who, he says, found no weapons on his person; then, he says, Wilson proceeded to pat him down for weapons a second time. Both Wilson and Officer Gary Jernigan testified, however, that Jernigan began the patdown of Warren, that Wilson joined him, and that together they completed the patdown of Warren. Wilson testified that during the patdown, he felt what he described as a "plastic box" in Warren's front pants pocket, and, he said, he removed it. When asked why he did so, Wilson replied:
"Through my experience as being an investigator in narcotics, I believed that it did, in fact, contain drugs because I have ran across the same type plastic containers in the past that have came off defendants that did, in fact, hold cocaine."
The "plastic box" was, in fact, a container ordinarily used to hold breath mints known as "Tic Tacs." The Tic Tac box in Warren's pocket, however, contained several small rocks that Wilson said appeared to be crack cocaine. The forensics report confirmed that the small rocks were crack cocaine.
Although Wilson testified that he and his fellow officers conducted the patdowns for safety reasons to search for weapons, he said that he reached into Warren's pocket to retrieve the Tic Tac box not because he thought it was a weapon, but because he thought it contained drugs:
Wilson also testified that in his best judgment, during approximately 50 patdowns he had conducted during his 16 months as a narcotics officer, he had felt and removed similar plastic containers four or five times during similar searches. In response to a question by Warren's attorney, he said that he had not found candy in any of the boxes, but he never said how many of the boxes he had felt and removed had contained illegal narcotics.
Warren argues, as he did before the Court of Criminal Appeals, that the police officers who searched and arrested him had received information from an unreliable informant and, therefore, lacked the reasonable suspicion required under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), to justify the initial investigative stop; and that Wilson exceeded the scope of a permissible Terry search when he retrieved the Tic Tac box from Warren's pocket during the patdown. The Court of Criminal Appeals held (1) that "the facts of this case created a reasonable suspicion that justified the investigatory stop of Warren, based on the information received from the informant and the independent police verification of [that] information" (783 So.2d at 79-80); (2) that "it was reasonably prudent for Detective Wilson to initiate the protective patdown of Warren" (783 So.2d at 81); (3) that "Detective Wilson's intrusion into Warren's pocket to retrieve the container fell outside the purpose of the protective patdown authorized by Terry" (783 So.2d at 82); and (4) that Wilson's seizure of the Tic Tac box was nevertheless justified on a different basis, i.e., the "plain-feel doctrine" announced by the United States Supreme Court in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals as to these first three holdings, and we see no need for any further discussion here of the issues to which those holdings related. We cannot agree, however, that Wilson's seizure of the Tic Tac box was justified by the plain-feel doctrine.
In Dickerson, the Supreme Court held that if a police officer detects contraband during a valid Terry patdown search, the officer may seize the contraband and it may be admitted into evidence. In stating the plain-feel doctrine, the Court rejected the contention that "plain feel" is not comparable to "plain view":
508 U.S. at 375-76,113 S.Ct. 2130 (footnotes omitted). The Court of Criminal Appeals has adopted the plain-feel doctrine in Alabama. See Huffman v. State, 651 So.2d 78 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) ( ); and Allen v. State, 689 So.2d 212 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) ( ).1
Dickerson establishes three prerequisites for a police officer's seizure of contraband pursuant to the plain-feel doctrine:
1. The officer must have a valid reason for the search, i.e., the patdown search must be permissible...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hunt
...baggie because its unlawful nature was not immediately apparent. 264 Va. 568, 570 S.E.2d 836, 839–40 (2002) ; see also Ex parte Warren , 783 So. 2d 86, 94–95 (Ala. 2000) ; Commonwealth v. Stevenson , 744 A.2d at 1268 ; State v. Parker , 622 So. 2d 791, 795 (La. Ct. App. 1993).In these cases......
-
Ex Parte Jenkins
...1284. I agree with the main opinion that we must recognize the realities law enforcement faces. See Ex parte Warren, 783 So.2d 86, 96 (Ala.2000) (See, J., concurring in the result) ("The assessment of probable cause turns on the weighing of probabilities in particular factual contexts, and ......
-
Ball v. US
...inside the defendant's pocket and open it. This is the type of further manipulation outlawed by Dickerson."). See also Ex parte Warren, 783 So.2d 86, 94 (Ala.2000) (plain feel of plastic candy container not sufficient to establish probable cause and opening the container was improper furthe......
-
McCracken v. State
...from the defendant's pocket a “ general exploratory search exceeding the permissible scope of a protective Terry frisk”); Ex parte Warren, 783 So.2d 86, 94 (Ala.2000) (holding unlawful the seizure of any hard-shell, closed container during a Terry frisk because “the incriminating nature of ......
-
Package bombs, footlockers, and laptops: what the disappearing Container Doctrine can tell us about the Fourth Amendment.
...cases, he had come across the same type of plastic container and the containers in those cases had concealed drugs. Ex parte Warren, 783 So. 2d 86, 88 (Ala. 2000). The Alabama Supreme Court held that the drugs in the Tic Tac box had to be excluded because the incriminating character of the ......
-
ILLIBERAL LAW IN AMERICAN COURTS.
...(2007))). (226) Fawber v. Dauphin Cty. Tax Claim Bureau, 44 Pa. D. & C.3d 13, 21 (Pa. C.P. Dauphin Cty. 1987). (227) Ex parte Warren, 783 So. 2d 86, 96 (Ala. 2000) (Johnstone, J., concurring); see also Snider v. State, 501 So. 2d 609, 610 (1986) (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) (Glickstein, J......
-
POCKET POLICE: THE PLAIN FEEL DOCTRINE THIRTY YEARS LATER.
...text. (153.) See supra notes 104-106 and accompanying text. (154.) See supra notes 91-92 and accompanying text. (155.) Ex parte Warren, 783 So. 2d 86, 88 (Ala. 2000). (156.) See supra notes 93-95 and accompanying text. (157.) See supra note 15 and accompanying text. (158.) See Nina Totenber......