Reynolds v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 8 |
| Citation | 46 Ala.App. 77,238 So.2d 557 |
| Parties | Marvin REYNOLDS, alias v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
L. H. Walden, and Warren S. Reese, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Owen Bridges, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant, Marvin Reynolds, appeals from a judgment of conviction for the unlawful possession of marijuana.
In brief counsel argues for reversal the invalidity of the affidavit upon which the search warrant is based and the improper execution of the search warrant.
The affidavit reads:
'Before me Bishop N. Barron, Assistant Judge of Municipal Court of the City of Montgomery, Ala., personally appeared Detective Robert Lynch of the Montgomery Police Department who being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has probable cause to believe and does believe that illicit narcotics and/or marijuana are contained in the residence of Marvin Reynolds, 1203 Deeming Street, Montgomery, Alabama, and in the automobile of said Marvin Reynolds, to-wit: a 1964 2-door hardtop Chevrolet bearing 1968 Alabama license #3--25877, which said automobile is usually parked, housed, or kept at the said 1203 Deeming Street, Montgomery, Alabama, such information and belief being the result of having been informed by an informer who has recently purchased illicit narcotics and/or marijuana from said Marvin Reynolds, whose information in the past has been reliable and whom I believe.
/s/ Robert E. Lynch
Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 21st day of March, 1968.
/s/ Bishop Barron
Assistant Judge, Municipal
Court of the City of Montgomery'
The affidavit provided a sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause. Myrick v. State, 45 Ala.App. 162, 227 So.2d 448. It is not subject to the vice of vagueness of the time element in Davis v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 46 Ala.App. 45, 237 So.2d 635 (1969).
A statement in an affidavit for a search warrant that an informant had 'recently' seen or purchased narcotic drugs, when connected with other language that would lead to the conclusion that the unawful condition continued to exist on those premises at the time of the application for the warrant, has been held sufficient to show the time when the alleged violation took place. Sutton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 419 S.W.2d 857; Hartless v. State, 121 Tex.Cr.R. 181, 50 S.W.2d 1097, 100 A.L.R.2d 531. See also Douglas v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 29, 161 S.W.2d 92.
The use of the word 'recently' in the affidavit under consideration, coupled with the statement that the drugs 'are contained' at the described location, was sufficient to show the event was not too remote.
After the jury was impaneled, but before the trial began, the jury was excused and evidence ore tenus in support of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the search was heard before the trial judge. The motion to suppress was denied.
The testimony taken at the hearing of the motion tended to show the following:
Four police officers, in plain clothes, went to defendant's home about ten-thirty in the morning. There were three entrances to the house, two faced Deeming Street and one was at the back. The officers separated, so that at least one was stationed at each door. They knocked on the doors and tapped on the windows for two and a half to five minutes. Receiving no answer, Agent Terry pulled the latch out of frame of the back screen door and entered the house. The other officers also went in the house. At no time before entering did they announce they were police officers or that they had a search warrant.
A search of the house was conducted. A very small amount of material suspected to be marijuana (later confirmed by test) was found in the pocket of a coat belonging to defendant. A search of the automobile at the house and again at the police station revealed marijuana residue and seed.
Title 15, Sec. 108, Code of Alabama, 1940, provides:
'To execute the warrant the officer may break open any door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, if, After notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance.' (Emphasis ours)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stevens, 92-1557-CR
...States v. Stewart, 867 F.2d 581 (10th Cir.1989); United States v. Likas, 448 F.2d 607, 609 (7th Cir.1971); Reynolds v. Alabama, 46 Ala.App. 77, 238 So.2d 557, 559-560 (Cr.1970); Arizona v. Bates, 120 Ariz. 561, 587 P.2d 747, 749 (1978); California v. Gastelo, 67 Cal.2d 586, 63 Cal.Rptr. 10,......
-
U.S. v. Moore
...the Fourth Amendment. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980).9 Compare Reynolds v. State, 46 Ala.App. 77, 238 So.2d 557, 559-60 (Ala.Cr.App.) cert. denied, 286 Ala. 740, 238 So.2d 560 (1970); State v. Mendoza, 104 Ariz. 395, 454 P.2d 140, 144-45 (1969); ......
-
Jones v. State
...did not contain a specific date); Huff v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 710, 194 S.E.2d 690, 695–96 (1993) (quoting Reynolds v. State, 46 Ala.App. 77, 238 So.2d 557, 558 (1970)) (affidavit's reference to repeated drug distribution coupled with statement that events occurred “in recent weeks” and “o......
-
Price v. State, 14-01-01028-CR.
...frustration of arrest); People v. Gastelo, 67 Ca1.2d 586, 63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 432 P.2d 706, 707-08 (1967); see also Reynolds v. State, 46 Ala.App. 77, 238 So.2d 557, 559-60 (1970). Other approaches provided for a blanket based on the assumption, usually viable in narcotics cases, that evidence......