State v. Cheatwood, CR-17-0569
Decision Date | 13 July 2018 |
Docket Number | CR-17-0569 |
Citation | 267 So.3d 882 |
Parties | STATE of Alabama v. Michael Jerome CHEATWOOD |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and P. David Bjurberg, asst. atty. gen., for appellant.
Jessie Edward Lowe, Oneonta, for appellee.
Michael Jerome Cheatwood was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance, see § 13A-12-212(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975, and possession of drug paraphernalia, see § 13A-12-260, Ala. Code 1975. Cheatwood filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of a Terry 1 frisk, namely, a pill bottle containing methamphetamine. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court granted Cheatwood's motion to suppress. Pursuant to Rule 15.7, Ala. R. Crim. P., the State appeals the circuit court's ruling.
The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established the following: On August 21, 2014, Deputy Chris McGahee with the Blount County Sheriff's Department received a request for a welfare check at the Dollar General discount store in Warrior, Alabama. Deputy McGahee found Cheatwood "passed out" in his vehicle in the parking lot outside the store. (R. 4.) Deputy McGahee approached Cheatwood and spoke to him from outside the vehicle. He testified that Cheatwood smelled of alcohol and that he had an open can of alcohol in the center console of his car. Deputy McGahee asked Cheatwood if he had "been drinking" and Cheatwood responded that he had. (R. 4.) After Cheatwood admitted he had consumed alcohol, Deputy McGahee initiated an investigation to determine whether Cheatwood was "under the influence." (R. 5.) Deputy McGahee ordered Cheatwood out of his vehicle and conducted a patdown search "for officer safety." (R. 5.) Cheatwood raised his shirt, revealing a pocketknife. Deputy McGahee removed the pocketknife and noticed an unlabeled pill bottle protruding from Cheatwood's back pocket. Deputy McGahee asked about the bottle and Cheatwood told him that it contained crushed up caffeine pills. When Deputy McGahee ordered him to hand over the bottle, Cheatwood placed the bottle behind his back and passed it from hand to hand. Deputy McGahee eventually seized the bottle; a subsequent field test indicated that the bottle contained methamphetamine. Deputy McGahee testified that he had 18 years of law-enforcement experience at the time of the suppression hearing. According to Deputy McGahee, people often keep contraband in pill bottles.
Following Deputy McGahee's testimony, the circuit court granted Cheatwood's motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine. The court stated:
(R. 12-13.)
On appeal, the State contends that the circuit court erred by granting Cheatwood's motion to suppress. Specifically, the State argues that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Deputy McGahee had reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct to perform a "stop and frisk" pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Cheatwood argues that the circuit court's ruling should be affirmed on the basis that the patdown was not supported by reasonable suspicion and argues further that, even if it was, the circuit court's ruling is due to be affirmed on the alternative ground that the patdown "exceeded the narrowly drawn scope of a Terry search." (Cheatwood's brief, p. 10.); see Washington v. State, 922 So.2d 145, 169 n.9 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) ().
In State v. Landrum, 18 So.3d 424 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009), this Court explained:
" State v. Hill, 690 So.2d at 1203-04." State v. Landrum, 18 So.3d at 426. Here, Deputy McGahee was the sole witness to testify at the suppression hearing, and his testimony was undisputed. Therefore, the only issue before this Court is whether the circuit court correctly applied the law to the facts set forth in Deputy McGahee's testimony, and we afford no presumption in favor of the circuit court's ruling.
B.A.H. v. State, 28 So.3d 29, 31-32 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
Here, Deputy McGahee articulated a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that warranted a Terry frisk. Even before he first encountered Cheatwood, Deputy McGahee knew that Cheatwood's condition necessitated a welfare check. Upon arriving at the Dollar General store, Deputy McGahee confirmed Cheatwood's condition when he found him passed out in his vehicle. Deputy McGahee's subsequent observations bolstered a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. He smelled alcohol emanating from Cheatwood's vehicle and observed an open container of alcohol in the center console of Cheatwood's car. When Deputy McGahee approached Cheatwood, Cheatwood admitted that he had consumed alcohol. See Hall v. State, 897 So.2d 410, 413 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) ( ). These factors prompted Deputy McGahee to order Cheatwood out of his vehicle and to conduct a patdown search for weapons before investigating his behavior. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1047, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (). Although Officer McGahee never "artfully stated his reasons for performing the patdown," he made it clear that he acted with the purpose of officer safety. State v. Bailey, 49 So.3d 1245, 1250 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) ; see Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 23, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (). These facts, in conjunction with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lawson v. State
...See, e.g., Bradley v. State, 494 So. 2d 750, 761 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985), aff'd, 494 So. 2d 772 (Ala. 1986)."), and State v. Cheatwood, 267 So. 3d 882 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018) (same). The affirm-for-any-reason rule, however, is not limitless. Rather, that rule is limited to only those reasons ......
-
People v. Alemayehu
..."unusual" circumstances in addition to these types of pill bottles to support a finding of probable cause. See State v. Cheatwood , 267 So. 3d 882, 887-88 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018) ("The surrounding circumstances, namely, the fact that [the defendant] smelled of alcohol, that he admitted to dr......
-
State v. Hunt
...set forth in [Det. Harless's] testimony, and we afford no presumption in favor of the circuit court's ruling."1 State v. Cheatwood, 267 So. 3d 882, 884-85 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018).Analysis On appeal, the State argues that the circuit court erred by suppressing the evidence resulting from the ......
-
State v. Hunt
...set forth in [Det. Harless's] testimony, and we afford no presumption in favor of the circuit court's ruling."1State v. Cheatwood, 267 So. 3d 882, 884-85 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018).Analysis On appeal, the State argues that the circuit court erred by suppressing the evidence resulting from the C......