King v. State, No. F-2007-665.

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtChapel
Citation182 P.3d 842,2008 OK CR 13
Docket NumberNo. F-2007-665.
Decision Date04 April 2008
PartiesTilmon KING, Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
182 P.3d 842
2008 OK CR 13
Tilmon KING, Appellant
v.
STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. F-2007-665.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
April 4, 2008.

Doug Parr, Oklahoma City, OK, attorney for defendant/petitioner at trial and on appeal.

Paul Hesse, Molly Neuman, Assistant District Attorneys, El Reno, OK, attorneys for state at trial.

W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Donald D. Self, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, attorneys for respondent on appeal.

OPINION

CHAPEL, Judge.


¶ 1 Tilmon King was tried by judge and convicted of Trafficking in Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) in violation of 63 O.S.2001, § 2-415, in the District Court of Canadian County, Case No. CF-2005-485.1 The Honorable Edward C. Cunningham sentenced King to six (6) years imprisonment and a $25,000 fine, with the fine suspended.

182 P.3d 843

King appeals from this conviction and sentence and raises one proposition of error in support of his appeal.

¶ 2 On September 26, 2005, at approximately 12:50 p.m., Agent Ronnie Jackson of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (OBNDD) stopped King on I-40 for following too closely. He wrote King a warning and asked to search the car. When King refused consent to search his rental car, Jackson called OBNDD Agent Lane to bring his drug dog and sniff the car. After the dog alerted, the OBNDD agents searched the car and found 161 pounds of marijuana. Before the stop, Agent Jackson was assigned to "highway interdiction" duties and was sitting stationary in the center median of I-40 monitoring eastbound traffic. According to the stipulation of facts, Jackson's duties entailed monitoring interstate highways in Oklahoma in order to interdict criminal activity. When Jackson first saw King's car it was not breaking any traffic laws. Jackson followed the car because it was a rental car with out-of-state plates. He watched the car until King committed a traffic violation, then pulled him over. Jackson had been patrolling interstate highways for the OBNDD since April 2005.

¶ 3 In his single proposition of error, King claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash his arrest, suppress the evidence, and dismiss the charges, because the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Control agent who made the traffic stop in his case did not have the statutory authority to enforce the traffic laws of the State of Oklahoma. Agent Jackson works for the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control. King claims, as he did below, that OBNDD agents have no statutory authorization to conduct traffic interdiction — that is, they can't make traffic stops. Therefore, he argues, his stop was illegal and the evidence in his case should have been suppressed. Both parties agree that a law enforcement officer cannot make an arrest outside his jurisdiction.2 The only issue is whether OBNDD agents have general or limited jurisdiction. This is a question of first impression. Neither party cites any cases from this or any other jurisdiction finding that an OBNDD agent has the authority to enforce traffic laws.

¶ 4 The State suggests without authority that we must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying King's motion to suppress the evidence. As King notes, this is not the correct standard of review in this case. While we review findings of fact under an abuse of discretion standard, we review questions of law de novo.3 The issue before the trial court, and presented on appeal, is purely an issue of law, and we conduct a de novo review.

¶ 5 The Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control was established by statute within the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act (the Act).4 The statute concerning OBNDD agents' authority states both: "Agents appointed by the Director shall have the powers of peace officers generally",5 and "Agents appointed pursuant to the provisions of this section shall have the responsibility of investigating alleged violations and shall have the authority to arrest those suspected of having violated the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act."6 The Act provides:

Any peace officer may: (1) Carry firearms; (2) Execute search warrants, arrest warrants, subpoenas, and summonses issued under the authority of this state; (3) Make an arrest without warrant of any person the officer has probable cause for believing has committed any felony under the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act or a violation of Section 2-402 of this title; (4) Make seizures of property pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act; and (5) Perform such other lawful duties as are

182 P.3d 844

required to carry out the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act.7

¶ 6 King's position is that the two specific references to the duties of law enforcement officers under the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act control the scope of law enforcement authority in connection with the Act. King argues that, as OBNDD agents are entirely authorized under the Act, their authority is limited to the provisions of §§ 2-103(C) and 2-501. King argues that this language neither explicitly nor implicitly authorizes OBNDD agents to conduct traffic stops. The State essentially responds that the specific statutory language in these two sections is not controlling, relying on the provision in § 2-103(B)(1) that OBNDD agents have the power of peace officers generally. The State argues that this designation means there can be no limits or restrictions on the law enforcement authority of OBNDD...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Coddington v. State , No. D–2008–655.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 13 Mayo 2011
    ...intentions; this is particularly true when the statute is designed for a specific situation. King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, ¶ 7, 182 P.3d 842, 844. Aggravating circumstances are determined by the Legislature and set forth in statute. 21 O.S.2001, § 701.12. A defendant may be eligible for the......
  • Bever v. State, Case No. F-2018-870
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 25 Junio 2020
    ...court's ruling is consistent with the current state of the law is an issue this Court reviews de novo . King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, ¶ 4, 182 P.3d 842, 843.¶21 In Proposition I, both the State and Appellant set forth the legal background of the evolving principles of law in the area of juv......
  • State v. Green, Case Number: S-2019-308
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 10 Septiembre 2020
    ...State, 2014 OK CR 2, ¶ 7, 326 P.3d 526, 527. We give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, ¶ 7, 182 P.3d 842, 844. In a minute order granting Green's motion to quash Count 1, the district court found the fact that the statute did not define the ter......
  • Tafolla v. State, Case No. F-2017-802
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 18 Julio 2019
    ...legislature, reconciling provisions, rendering them consistent and giving intelligent effect to each. King v. State , 2008 OK CR 13, ¶ 7, 182 P.3d 842, 844. "To determine legislative intent we may look to each part of the statute, similar statutes, the evils to be remedied, and the conseque......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Coddington v. State , No. D–2008–655.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 13 Mayo 2011
    ...intentions; this is particularly true when the statute is designed for a specific situation. King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, ¶ 7, 182 P.3d 842, 844. Aggravating circumstances are determined by the Legislature and set forth in statute. 21 O.S.2001, § 701.12. A defendant may be eligible for the......
  • Bever v. State, Case No. F-2018-870
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 25 Junio 2020
    ...court's ruling is consistent with the current state of the law is an issue this Court reviews de novo . King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, ¶ 4, 182 P.3d 842, 843.¶21 In Proposition I, both the State and Appellant set forth the legal background of the evolving principles of law in the area of juv......
  • State v. Green, Case Number: S-2019-308
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 10 Septiembre 2020
    ...State, 2014 OK CR 2, ¶ 7, 326 P.3d 526, 527. We give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, ¶ 7, 182 P.3d 842, 844. In a minute order granting Green's motion to quash Count 1, the district court found the fact that the statute did not define the ter......
  • Tafolla v. State, Case No. F-2017-802
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 18 Julio 2019
    ...legislature, reconciling provisions, rendering them consistent and giving intelligent effect to each. King v. State , 2008 OK CR 13, ¶ 7, 182 P.3d 842, 844. "To determine legislative intent we may look to each part of the statute, similar statutes, the evils to be remedied, and the conseque......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT