Miller v. State
| Decision Date | 17 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 315 |
| Citation | 54 Ala.App. 230,307 So.2d 40 |
| Parties | Lon MILLER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Simmons, Torbert & Cardwell, Gadsden, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Richard F. Calhoun, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in circuit court for a failure to keep records of a Class II controlled substance as required by Sections 306, 307, and 308 of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act and a fine of $1,000.00 was assessed against the appellant by the jury.
The basis of this prosecution is certain evidence consisting of a quantity of amphetamine capsules found in the drug store operated by appellant when the police officers, operating under authority of a search warrant, found the drugs. The officers further claimed that no record of the possession of this quantity of drugs was kept by appellant as required by the Uniform Controlled Substances Act and regulations promulgated by the State Board of Pharmacy.
The affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued herein is set out as follows:
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
ETOWAH COUNTY
SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT
Before me, H. P. Gable Deputy City Recorder of the City of Gadsden, Alabama, personally appeared Sgt C. E. Stonecypher who being duly sworn deposes and says that He has probable cause to believe and does believe that illicit Amphetamines are contained in the business of Lon Miller located at Sutherlin Drugs, 1020 Tuscaloosa Ave. Gadsden. Alabama, such information and belief being the result of having been informed by an informer who has recently obtained illicit amphetamines from said Lon Miller, the informer is in a position to know having seen Miller with the drugs in his possession. The informer has furnished information that has been accurate on three separate occasions and whom I believe that Lon Miller's Sutherlin Drugs, at 1020 Tuscaloosa Ave. Gadsden, Ala. has concealed or stored about his or her premises illicit Narcotics and/or Drugs, to-wit: Amphetamines, for unlawful use or sale or disposition, contrary to the laws of Alabama.
/s/ C. E. Stonecypher
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of February, 1972.
/s/ H. P. Gable
The affidavit was introduced into evidence as State's exhibit 1, over the objection of the appellant on voir dire examination out of the presence of the jury, and later it was agreed between the parties and the court that appellant should have a continuing objection to the admissibility of the affidavit and as to the drugs found during the search, which objection applied to all evidence thereof introduced during the trial on its merits.
For the reasons hereinafter set out, we are of the opinion that the affidavit was legally insufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant and the ensuing search of appellant's premises under the warrant. The warrant authorizes a search of the business premises of appellant and not a search of his person.
Nowhere in the affidavit does it appear that the informer had seen the drugs on the premises of the appellant. The affidavit simply alleges that the informer 'has recently obtained illicit amphetamines from said Lon Miller, the informer is in a position to know having seen Miller with the drugs in his possession.'
The use of the word 'recently' to describe the proximity in time when the drugs had been observed by the informer, standing alone, does not measure up to the requirement as to time and is subject to the criticism that it is too uncertain and vague. However, it is held that the word when coupled with the statement that the drug is contained at a described location may be permissible and not subject to the criticism that the description is too vague. But this is not the situation presented to us in the instant case. The present affidavit merely charges that the informer had recently obtained illicit amphetamines from the appellant. There are no other facts set out upon which the issuing magistrate could make a finding of probable cause. See Walker v. State, 49 Ala.App. 741, 275 So.2d 724, cert. denied 290 Ala. 371, 275 So.2d 732.
In Horzempa v. State, 292 Ala. 140, 290 So.2d 220 (1974), the Supreme Court following the rule set out in Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.E.2d 306; Spinelli...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neugent v. State
...claims to have seen what he said he saw . . .' See also Justice Faulkner's affirming opinion of Horzempa, supra. In Miller v. State, 54 Ala.App. 230, 307 So.2d 40 (1974), the affidavit stated that the informant had seen the defendant with the drugs in his possession. He also stated that he ......
-
Stikes v. State, 6 Div. 314
...renders it defective and insufficient. Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 286 Ala. 117, 237 So.2d 640 (1970); Miller v. State, 54 Ala.App. 230, 307 So.2d 40 (1975); Annot. 100 A.L.R.2d 525 Since these facts would not have authorized the issuance of a search warrant for the trunk of th......
-
Gass v. State
...which show the basis of the informant's conclusions, that the items to be seized were where they said they were, see Miller v. State, 54 Ala.App. 230, 307 So.2d 40 (1974); and Pilkington v. State, 343 So.2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), as well as circumstances which give reasonable cause to belie......
-
Thomas v. State, 6 Div. 204
...or dispose of it in another fashion. Such makes for a stale warrant. Haynes v. State, 50 Ala.App. 96, 277 So.2d 372; Miller v. State, 54 Ala.App. 230, 307 So.2d 40. Thus, the "two-prong test" set forth in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, and Spinelli v. United ......