Gundrum v. State, 4 Div. 484
Decision Date | 02 February 1990 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 484 |
Citation | 563 So.2d 27 |
Parties | Paul Dale GUNDRUM v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. Allen Cook, Andalusia, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Rosa H. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Paul Dale Gundrum, was convicted of possessing cocaine, a violation of § 13A-12-212, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
The evidence tended to show the following: On May 15, 1988, appellant was stopped and arrested for driving under the influence. Officer Booker was in his patrol car in Florala, Alabama, when the appellant's automobile approached him in the middle of the road. Booker drove his car off the road to avoid being hit by the appellant. Officer Booker managed to turn his patrol car around and he pursued the appellant. The appellant drove approximately one-fourth of a mile and stopped. He and the officer both got out of their cars. Booker smelled liquor on the appellant's breath and noticed that the appellant staggered. Appellant was then arrested for driving under the influence and was taken to the officer's patrol car. At this time, Officer Geohagan joined Booker, and they both searched the appellant's car. Geohagan opened the unlocked glove compartment and a homemade "crack pipe" fell to the floor. Cocaine residue was discovered inside the pipe.
Appellant was taken to the police station and given the Intoxilyzer 5000 test. His breath registered a blood alcohol content of .227%. The car driven by the appellant was registered to him.
Appellant stated at trial that when the police stopped him, he was halfway up the stairs to his apartment. He also testified that he did not know that the pipe was in the car.
I
Appellant contends that the evidence discovered in the glove compartment was inadmissible because, he argues, the police officers conducted a warrantless search which exceeded their authority. Specifically, appellant contends that the search of the car was unlawful because the appellant was in the patrol car at the time of the search. Appellant does not question the validity of his arrest. The state maintains that the search was permissible as incident to a lawful arrest.
Officers may conduct a warrantless search and seizure in the following instances: "(1) plain view, (2) consent, (3) incident to a lawful arrest, (4) hot pursuit or emergency situations, (5) exigent circumstances coupled with probable cause, and (6) stop and frisk situations." Brannon v. State, 549 So.2d 532, 536 (Ala.Cr.App.1989).
C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 334.01(3)(j)(1) (3d ed. 1977). The case of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), established the standard. In 1981, the United States Supreme Court in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), evaluated this standard when arresting individuals who have recently occupied vehicles.
In Belton, police stopped a vehicle for speeding. It was occupied by four men. The officer asked to see the license of the driver and the registration of the vehicle. No individual in the car could produce the registration. The officer smelled marijuana and noticed an envelope on the floor marked "Supergold," a name which is associated with marijuana. The men were asked to exit the vehicle and were then arrested for possession of marijuana. Police then searched the car and "passenger compartment" and discovered incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court, interpreting the earlier case of Chimel v. California, supra, stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glasco v. Com.
...v. Patterson, 993 F.2d 121, 123 (6 th Cir.1993); United States v. Cotton, 751 F.2d 1146, 1149 (10 th Cir.1985); Gundrum v. State, 563 So.2d 27, 28-29 (Ala. Crim.App.1990); State v. Weathers, 234 Ga. App. 376, 506 S.E.2d 698, 699 (1998); but see United States v. Vasey, 834 F.2d 782, 788 (9 t......
-
Mason v. State
...the appellant was already handcuffed and placed in the police officer's car when the appellant's car was searched. Gundrum v. State, 563 So.2d 27 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his custodial statement because, he clai......
-
Baird v. State
...car was searched." Mason v. State, 768 So.2d 981, 999 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), aff'd, 768 So.2d 1008 (Ala.2000), citing Gundrum v. State, 563 So.2d 27 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). Because the deputy discovered the gun and prescription bottles during a search that was incident to a lawful arrest, there ......
-
People v. LeFlore, 116799.
...the Alabama Supreme Court had not specifically addressed the location of the arrestee at the time of arrest. See Gundrum v. State, 563 So.2d 27, 28 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) (noting that its state supreme court had not addressed the issue).6 The appellate court also reversed defendant's convictio......