Phipps v. State, No. F-90-307

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtJOHNSON
Citation841 P.2d 591,1992 OK CR 32
Docket NumberNo. F-90-307
Decision Date04 May 1992
PartiesAnna Louise PHIPPS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

Page 591

841 P.2d 591
Anna Louise PHIPPS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. F-90-307.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
May 4, 1992.
Publication Directed Nov. 9, 1992.

Page 592

An appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Joe Jennings, District Judge.

Anna Louise Phipps, appellant, waived her right to a jury trial and proceeded to non-jury trial by stipulating to the testimony given at preliminary hearing. Appellant was found guilty by the trial court of the crime of Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute, in Case No. CF-88-5270 in the District Court of Tulsa County, before the Honorable Joe Jennings, District Judge, and sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment and a $4,000 fine. From this Judgment and Sentence, appellant appeals. Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS.

C. Rabon Martin and Stuart Southerland, Tulsa, for appellant.

Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma and Elizabeth J. Bradford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

JOHNSON, Judge:

Anna Louise Phipps, appellant, waived her right to a jury trial and proceeded to non-jury trial by stipulating to the testimony given at preliminary hearing. Appellant was found guilty by the trial court of the crime of Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.1988, § 2-401, in Case No. CF-88-5270 in the District Court of Tulsa County, and sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment and a $4,000 fine. From this Judgment and Sentence, appellant now appeals.

The record of the preliminary hearing reveals the following. On December 23, 1988, Larry Kinney, an off-duty Police Undercover Narcotics Officer, was driving his personal vehicle when he observed a woman driving a blue Lincoln that he recognized as being connected with a marijuana investigation he had conducted six months earlier. Kinney had been unable to learn the residence of the registered owner of the car during the previous investigation, so he began to follow it.

Before long, the Lincoln pulled into a Tulsa convenience store parking lot and stopped next to appellant's Oldsmobile. The driver of the Lincoln got out and approached appellant. After a short conversation, both women drove to the back of the parking lot, next to an empty store, where they had another short conversation. Afterwards, they drove about a block and stopped in an apartment complex parking lot. Both women exited their cars and opened up their trunks. The driver of the Lincoln removed a box from her trunk and placed it in the Oldsmobile trunk. The cars then left, each going in a different direction.

Based on his suspicion that a drug transaction had just occurred, Officer Kinney radioed for a uniformed police officer with a marked car to stop appellant. Meanwhile, Kinney followed appellant as she drove through Tulsa and approached Broken Arrow. Officer Kinney's radio reception began to weaken as he followed appellant out of Tulsa, so the officer in the marked backup responding to Kinney's request for assistance radioed for a Broken Arrow police officer to assist him.

Before any of the officers in the marked cars were able to catch up, appellant apparently recognized that she was being followed by Kinney, and pulled into a Broken Arrow convenience store. Officer Kinney pulled in next to her. She immediately began to back out, so Kinney backed out as well. Appellant then quickly pulled back in, as did Kinney. Both then exited their cars. Appellant angrily approached Officer Kinney and asked if he were following her. He identified himself as a Tulsa police officer and showed appellant his badge. He then asked her for identification, which she produced in the form of a drivers license.

Officer Kinney then began to question appellant about where she had been and

Page 593

with whom she had met. At this point, two Tulsa patrol units and one Broken Arrow unit arrived on the scene. Kinney continued the questioning and told appellant that he had observed the transfer of the box in Tulsa. He also told her that he suspected the person she got the box from was involved in marijuana trafficking. He then asked her what was in the box. According to Kinney, appellant said nothing in response, but sighed, walked over to her trunk, opened it, and threw her keys on the sidewalk. Kinney then asked appellant for permission to look in the box, to which she replied, "Go ahead, it's not mine. I don't know what's in it." Kinney sliced open the box with a knife, and saw and smelled what appeared to be marijuana. He then arrested appellant and placed her in one of the Tulsa patrol cars.

I.

The sole issue determinative of this appeal is whether a police officer, under the facts and circumstances presented herein, acting under color of law, can conduct a consensual search of a car outside of his jurisdiction. We conclude that he cannot.

Generally, a police officer's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • State v. Cody, No. S-94-109
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 27 Octubre 1995
    ...law is subject to suppression. In support of this theory, Cody cites a variety of cases from various jurisdictions. E.g., Phipps v. State, 841 P.2d 591 (Okla.Crim.App.1992); Wilson v. State, 403 So.2d 982 (Fla.App.1980); People v. Martin, 225 Cal.App.2d 91, 36 Cal.Rptr. 924 Even assuming ar......
  • USA v. Sawyer, No. CQ-2004-240.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 8 Junio 2004
    ...48, ¶ 10, 932 P.2d 1136, 1139-1140; see also State v. Ramsey, 1993 OK CR 54, ¶ 10, 868 P.2d 709, 712; Phipps v. State, 1992 OK CR 32, ¶ 9, 841 P.2d 591, ¶ 12 This Court's decision in Phipps is dispositive of the question certified.3 In 92 P.3d 710 Phipps, this Court held a police officer ac......
  • State v. Keefe, Case Number: S–2015–961
    • United States
    • Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 31 Enero 2017
    ...color of law. Two of the primary cases being State v. Kieffer–Roden , 2009 OK CR 18, 208 P.3d 471, and Phipps v. State , 1992 OK CR 32, 841 P.2d 591. Given that immediate action became necessary in Judge Hiddle's view to neutralize what had escalated into an extremely dangerous situation in......
  • King v. State, No. F-2007-665.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 4 Abril 2008
    ...an appeal out of time on June 20, 2007. 2. United States v. Sawyer, 2004 OK CR 22, 92 P.3d 707, 709; Phipps v. State, 1992 OK CR 32, 841 P.2d 591, 3. Gomez v. State, 2007 OK CR 33, 168 P.3d 1139, 1141-42; Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, 152 P.3d 235, 237. 4. 63 O.S.2001, § 2-102. 5. 63 O.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • State v. Cody, No. S-94-109
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 27 Octubre 1995
    ...law is subject to suppression. In support of this theory, Cody cites a variety of cases from various jurisdictions. E.g., Phipps v. State, 841 P.2d 591 (Okla.Crim.App.1992); Wilson v. State, 403 So.2d 982 (Fla.App.1980); People v. Martin, 225 Cal.App.2d 91, 36 Cal.Rptr. 924 Even assuming ar......
  • USA v. Sawyer, No. CQ-2004-240.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 8 Junio 2004
    ...48, ¶ 10, 932 P.2d 1136, 1139-1140; see also State v. Ramsey, 1993 OK CR 54, ¶ 10, 868 P.2d 709, 712; Phipps v. State, 1992 OK CR 32, ¶ 9, 841 P.2d 591, ¶ 12 This Court's decision in Phipps is dispositive of the question certified.3 In 92 P.3d 710 Phipps, this Court held a police officer ac......
  • State v. Keefe, Case Number: S–2015–961
    • United States
    • Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 31 Enero 2017
    ...color of law. Two of the primary cases being State v. Kieffer–Roden , 2009 OK CR 18, 208 P.3d 471, and Phipps v. State , 1992 OK CR 32, 841 P.2d 591. Given that immediate action became necessary in Judge Hiddle's view to neutralize what had escalated into an extremely dangerous situation in......
  • King v. State, No. F-2007-665.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 4 Abril 2008
    ...an appeal out of time on June 20, 2007. 2. United States v. Sawyer, 2004 OK CR 22, 92 P.3d 707, 709; Phipps v. State, 1992 OK CR 32, 841 P.2d 591, 3. Gomez v. State, 2007 OK CR 33, 168 P.3d 1139, 1141-42; Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, 152 P.3d 235, 237. 4. 63 O.S.2001, § 2-102. 5. 63 O.S......
  • 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