State v. Stuart, No. S-88-618

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtLUMPKIN
Citation855 P.2d 1070,1993 OK CR 29
PartiesThe STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Billie Jean STUART and Denzel Lee Vaughn, Appellees.
Decision Date28 June 1993
Docket NumberNo. S-88-618

Page 1070

855 P.2d 1070
The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant,
v.
Billie Jean STUART and Denzel Lee Vaughn, Appellees.
No. S-88-618.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
June 28, 1993.
As Corrected July 12, 1993.

Lantz McClain, Dist. Atty. and Stanley L. Carver, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Sapulpa, for appellant.

W. Creekmore Wallace and Guy Fitzsimmons, Sapulpa, for appellees.

OPINION

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge:

Appellees Billie Jean Stuart and Denzel Lee Vaughn were charged with Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute in violation of 63 O.S.1981, § 2-401(B)(2), in the District Court of Creek County, Case No. CRF-88-39. A preliminary hearing was held for the Appellees before the Honorable Bill Wilson, Special Judge.

The State presented the testimony of two witnesses, Deputy Fugate and Officer Wall. Deputy Fugate, Creek County Sheriff's office, testified that he assisted officers of the Sapulpa Police Department on February 11, 1988, in executing a search warrant on the Appellee's home. The residence was located in a rural area, south of the city limits of Sapulpa, in Creek County. Quantities of marijuana, drug paraphernalia and cash were found inside the residence.

Officer Wall, Sapulpa Police Department, testified that he was the affiant on the search warrant. He stated that a few days prior to the issuance of the search warrant, he was informed by a confidential informant that the Appellees were selling marijuana from their residence. The informant led Officer Wall to Appellee's residence, located outside the city limits of Sapulpa. Officer Wall subsequently arranged for a controlled purchase of the marijuana to be made. Along with another city police officer, Officer Wall observed the confidential

Page 1072

informant enter the residence and exit shortly thereafter with a quantity of marijuana. This information was set forth in the affidavit for the search warrant and provided the probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. (O.R. 11)

Appellees moved to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant and moved to quash the warrant alleging that it contained information gathered by Officer Wall while acting beyond his jurisdiction in conducting the controlled drug buy outside the limits of the city of Sapulpa. Judge Wilson granted the motion to suppress, finding that Officer Wall had exceeded his jurisdiction.

The State appealed the ruling pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.1987, § 1089.1 et seq. The hearing was held on July 22, 1988, before the Honorable Billy L. Martin, Associate District Judge. Judge Martin affirmed the ruling of the magistrate and denied the State's appeal, finding that the "Sapulpa police officers in conducting a controlled purchase of drugs at a house located outside the city limits, accompanied by an informant who made the actual buy, were exercising the special powers of their office, and were therefore outside of their jurisdiction." (O.R. 32) It is this ruling which the State now appeals.

At the preliminary hearing, and now on appeal, the State argued that the police officers were not exercising the special powers of their office, but were merely acting as private citizens. In support of this argument, the State directs us to Guthrie v. State, 668 P.2d 1147 (Okl.Cr.1983), and Meadows v. State, 655 P.2d 556 (Okl.Cr.1982).

In Guthrie, a Muskogee city police officer met with a confidential informant at the property subjected later to search. The property was located outside the city limits of Muskogee. The officer was unable to see anything from the roadway due to darkness. However, he recorded the defendant's name from the mail box on the property. This information was later contained in the affidavit for the search warrant.

In finding that the affidavit was not fatally defective for containing this information we stated:

We have recognized the general rule that a police officer's authority cannot extend beyond his jurisdiction, i.e., the city...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Richardson, No. 94-5193
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • June 6, 1996
    ...Tulsa city police officers exceeded their jurisdiction by conducting the search outside Tulsa city limits. He relies on State v. Stuart, 855 P.2d 1070 (Okla.Crim.App.1993), which upheld the suppression of evidence where the "affidavit for the search Page 1544 warrant was fatally defective b......
  • U.S. v. Finney
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 29, 1993
    ...and private citizen to purchase the drugs, rather than a police officer pursuant to his special powers. She relies upon State v. Stuart, 855 P.2d 1070 (Okla.Crim.App.1993) which held that an affidavit for a search warrant was fatally defective when the evidence supporting it was based upon ......
  • USA v. Sawyer, No. CQ-2004-240.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • June 8, 2004
    ...could not be used to establish probable cause in the subsequent affidavit for a search warrant. State v. Stuart, 1993 OK CR 29, ¶ 19, 855 P.2d 1070, 1074; Phipps, 1992 OK CR 32, ¶ 12, 841 P.2d at 594; Dale v. State, 2002 OK CR 1, ¶ 10, 38 P.3d 910, 912 (fruits of search based upon involunta......
  • State v. Vrabel, 108,930.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • April 24, 2015
    ...and conducting a controlled drug buy as the exercise of police powers subject to territorial jurisdiction limits. See State v. Stuart, 855 P.2d 1070, 1074 (Okla.Crim.1993) (invalidating search warrant obtained pursuant to controlled drug buy arranged by city police to occur outside city lim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • U.S. v. Richardson, No. 94-5193
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • June 6, 1996
    ...Tulsa city police officers exceeded their jurisdiction by conducting the search outside Tulsa city limits. He relies on State v. Stuart, 855 P.2d 1070 (Okla.Crim.App.1993), which upheld the suppression of evidence where the "affidavit for the search Page 1544 warrant was fatally defective b......
  • U.S. v. Finney
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 29, 1993
    ...and private citizen to purchase the drugs, rather than a police officer pursuant to his special powers. She relies upon State v. Stuart, 855 P.2d 1070 (Okla.Crim.App.1993) which held that an affidavit for a search warrant was fatally defective when the evidence supporting it was based upon ......
  • USA v. Sawyer, No. CQ-2004-240.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • June 8, 2004
    ...could not be used to establish probable cause in the subsequent affidavit for a search warrant. State v. Stuart, 1993 OK CR 29, ¶ 19, 855 P.2d 1070, 1074; Phipps, 1992 OK CR 32, ¶ 12, 841 P.2d at 594; Dale v. State, 2002 OK CR 1, ¶ 10, 38 P.3d 910, 912 (fruits of search based upon involunta......
  • State v. Vrabel, 108,930.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • April 24, 2015
    ...and conducting a controlled drug buy as the exercise of police powers subject to territorial jurisdiction limits. See State v. Stuart, 855 P.2d 1070, 1074 (Okla.Crim.1993) (invalidating search warrant obtained pursuant to controlled drug buy arranged by city police to occur outside city lim......
  • 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