State v. Knox (Ex parte Knox)

• Decision Date: 26 June 2015
• Docket Number: 1131207.
• Parties: Ex parte Teddy Lee KNOX. (In re: State of Alabama v. Teddy Lee Knox).
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

201 So.3d 1213

Ex parte Teddy Lee KNOX.(In re: State of Alabama

v.Teddy Lee Knox).

1131207.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 26, 2015.

Robert W. Reed of Mauney & Associates, LLC, Fort Payne, for petitioner.

Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Laura I. Cuthbert, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.

MURDOCK, Justice.

Teddy Lee Knox filed a motion to suppress evidence in the form of marijuana seized during a traffic stop. The DeKalb Circuit Court granted the motion on the ground that there was not reasonable suspicion for the search. The State appealed; the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment on a ground not raised in the circuit court: that Knox was no longer being detained at the time the search was executed.

This Court granted certiorari review on the ground that the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision conflicts with the caselaw regarding the issue whether a party may present a new legal question or issue on appeal.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In August 2011, Knox was driving north on Interstate 59 in Fort Payne. Officer Matt Wilson of the Fort Payne Police Department stopped Knox's vehicle for improper lane use. During the stop, Officer Wilson became suspicious that Knox might be transporting drugs, and he requested backup from Officer Tony Blackwell, who was a member of the county drug task force and who had his drug-detection dog with him. Lt. Randy Garrison, another member of the drug task force, was also en route to the scene.

Officer Wilson eventually issued a warning citation to Knox and told him that he was free to go, but he continued to question Knox about his travel plans. Lt. Garrison and Officer Blackwell arrived at some point during the questioning of Knox.¹ After Officer Blackwell arrived with his dog, Officer Wilson asked Knox if he would consent to a search of his vehicle. Knox refused to consent, and Officer Blackwell then deployed his dog to perform a free-air sniff.² The dog “indicated” on the vehicle for the odor of marijuana, and the police eventually searched the vehicle and discovered marijuana. The police seized in excess of 2.2 pounds of marijuana and arrested Knox for trafficking in marijuana, unlawful possession of marijuana, and first-degree unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia.

Knox filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana seized during the traffic stop. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court entered a written order granting the motion to suppress.

The court enumerated nine factors upon which Officer Wilson based his reasonable suspicion that Knox was engaged in criminal activity involving drugs. The court found that “neither the [nine] individual factors nor the totality of those factors provided the officer sufficient reasonable suspicion to detain Knox beyond the point in time when the officer gave Knox the warning citation and told him he was free to go.” The circuit court granted Knox's motion to suppress. The State appealed.

In a per curiam opinion issued on May 2, 2014, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the circuit court's order granting Knox's motion to suppress and remanded the case. State v. Knox, 201 So.3d 1203 (Ala.Crim.App.2014).³

The main opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals noted the circuit court's findings and conclusions, but did not decide whether the totality of the circumstances was sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion for a search of Knox's vehicle. Instead, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the order on a different ground, which the State raised for the first time on appeal, i.e., that Knox was no longer being detained for the traffic stop at the time of the search by the drug-detection dog.⁴

Knox argued to the Court of Criminal Appeals that the State's argument that he was not being detained at the time of the search by the drug-detection dog was not preserved for appellate review. The Court of Criminal Appeals addressed issue preservation in a footnote in its opinion as follows:

“Although the State did not raise this specific argument below, ‘we review the circuit court's application of the law to the facts in this case de novo.’ State v. Pollard, 160 So.3d 826, 831 n. 3 (Ala.Crim.App.2013). Because this argument is based on facts ‘squarely presented to the circuit court, the argument is properly before this Court for review.’ Id. ”

201 So.3d at 1207 n. 1.

Judge Joiner concurred specially and discussed the holdings of State v. Pollard, 160 So.3d 826 (Ala.Crim.App.2013), and Ex parte Jenkins, 26 So.3d 464 (Ala.2009), regarding the principle that on appeal an appellant may not raise a new question of law but may offer an “ ‘additional “precise reason” ’ ” for reversing the decision below. 201 So.3d at 1212 (quoting Jenkins, 26 So.3d at 473 n. 7 ). Judge Joiner concluded that the State's argument in this case was not a new question of law, but was an additional reason. Significantly, the main opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals does not cite or discuss Jenkins.

Presiding Judge Windom dissented, citing her dissent in Pollard. 201 So.3d at 1213. In her dissent in Pollard, Judge Windom stated that the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that de novo review excuses a waiver of an argument presented for the first time on appeal confuses de novo review with preservation of issues for appellate review and concluded that, “regardless of whether appellate review is for abuse of discretion or de novo, a party seeking to have a circuit court's decision overturned must have properly preserved the argument upon which it seeks relief on appeal.” Pollard, 160 So.3d at 835 (Windom, P.J., dissenting).

This Court granted certiorari review regarding the asserted conflict between the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision and Jenkins regarding the principle that new arguments may not be raised for the first time on appeal.

II. Standard of Review

“ ‘This Court reviews pure questions of law in criminal cases de novo.’ ” Ex parte Morrow, 915 So.2d 539, 541 (Ala.2004) (quoting Ex parte Key, 890 So.2d 1056, 1059 (Ala.2003) ).

III. Analysis

Before discussing the asserted conflict with Jenkins, we note the long-established principle of issue preservation:

“[I]t is a well-settled rule that an appellate court's review is limited to only those issues that were raised before the trial court. Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409 (Ala.1992).... Issues raised for the first time on appeal cannot be considered. Andrews, supra.... However, ‘[t]he rule requiring adherence to the theory relied on below ... does not mean the parties are limited in the appellate court to the same reasons or arguments advanced in the lower court upon the matter or question in issue.’ Home Indemnity Co. v. Reed Equipment Co., 381 So.2d 45, 50 (Ala.1980).”

Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So.2d 1365, 1372 (Ala.1994).⁵

Jenkins did not abolish this principle, but merely addressed its application. Jenkins stated that the rule of issue preservation “generally prevents an appellant from raising on appeal a question or theory that has not been preserved for appellate review, not the provision to a higher court of an additional specific reason or authority for a theory or position asserted by the party in the lower court.” Jenkins, 26 So.3d at 473 n. 7. As discussed later in the opinion, Jenkins provides no support for the notion expressed in Pollard that, if a case is subject to de novo review, the appellate court may consider any argument (whether or not presented to the circuit court) that is based on “fact[s] ... squarely presented to the circuit court.” Pollard, 160 So.3d at 831 n. 3.

In Jenkins, the trial court determined that a search warrant was invalid because it was not supported by probable cause and because it did not sufficiently describe the items to be seized. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's order. This Court granted certiorari review to examine the sufficiency of the description in the warrant of the items to be seized.

Before this Court, the State offered an additional reason, not previously offered, as to why the description of the items to be seized was sufficient, i.e., that “drugs,” the term used in the warrant, and marijuana, not specifically mentioned in the warrant as an item to be seized, would be found in the same types of places, thus reducing the risk that an inadequate description of the object would permit a general exploratory search. This Court held that the warrant sufficiently described the items to be seized and concluded as follows as to issue preservation:

“In the present case, the question whether the language of the warrant describing the object of the search was specific enough to satisfy the ‘thing-to-be-seized’ requirement within the so-called ‘particularity clause’ of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has existed throughout. ... The trial court's order analyzed the issue in-depth and concluded that the language of the warrant did not satisfy the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment.... The State, by its citation to this Court of the Montana and South Carolina Supreme Court cases quoted in the text, is simply giving this Court the benefit of an additional ‘precise reason’ and authority as to why, as a matter of law, the trial court wrongly decided this issue. ”

Jenkins, 26 So.3d at 474 n. 7 (emphasis added).

Jenkins did not alter the general principle of issue preservation; it merely allowed an appellant to provide additional precise reasons and authorities in support of a theory or position properly raised below.⁶ Jenkins does not support the notion that a new theory may be presented on appeal merely in support of the broad claim that the trial court erred.

In Jenkins, the question before the trial court was whether the warrant was sufficiently specific when it described the object of the search as “drugs,” without specifically listing marijuana. The similarity in possible hiding places provided an additional precise reason the description was sufficient, not an entirely new...