Thompson v. State
Decision Date | 22 March 1996 |
Docket Number | CR-94-1924 |
Citation | 680 So.2d 1014 |
Parties | Derrick Leondray THOMPSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Greg McCain, Dothan, for appellant.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Robin Blevins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Derrick Leondray Thompson, pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property in the second degree, a violation of § 13A-8-18, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in the state penitentiary.
The appellant attacks the denial of his motion to suppress evidence resulting from the search of his automobile. A guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects occurring before the entry of the plea. Prim v. State, 616 So.2d 381, 382 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). The appellant specifically reserved the right to appeal as to this issue.
Officer James Stanley, a narcotics officer with the Dothan Police Department, testified that he and Corporal Governor Jackson were patrolling an area of Houston County known for its drug trafficking activity when he noticed several men standing around a parked car. The men were looking into the trunk of an older model Cadillac automobile. Stanley testified that when the group noticed the police one of the members slammed the trunk lid closed and the group dispersed.
Stanley testified that when he and Jackson approached the appellant, several other men were with him. He stated that when he walked up to the group he saw the appellant drop a set of keys on the ground. Stanley testified that he asked the appellant if the keys on the ground were his keys and he said, "No." Stanley also asked the appellant if the car was his and he said, "No." Stanley then asked the appellant if he knew anything about the car and he said "No, I don't." He further testified that he ran a registration check on the license plate and found that the license plate was issued for another vehicle.
Stanley opened the trunk of the car and found four whitewall tires, on Crager brand wire-chrome custom wheels. The tires had been stolen. The appellant later admitted in a pretrial statement that he owned the vehicle and stated that he had purchased the tires the previous evening.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of the tires found by Officer Stanley in the trunk of the Cadillac. Specifically, he contends that the initial stop and the resulting search of the car violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and violated Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
The appellant contends that the initial stop by Officers Stanley and Jackson was illegal because, he said, they did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that he was involved in criminal activity. In Worthy v. State, 473 So.2d 634, 636 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), this court summarized the standards set forth in Terry and subsequent cases.
473 So.2d at 636-37. (Emphasis added.)
Officer Stanley's testimony revealed that his reason for approaching the appellant was that the appellant was in an area known for drug activity and the Cadillac that the appellant was standing by was parked in the driveway of a house that had been the location of a previous drug arrest. The appellant and several others had gathered around the car and were looking inside the trunk. When the group spotted the police, one of the group slammed the trunk lid closed and the group dispersed. Stanley also testified that he recognized a couple of the men standing by the car from previous drug-related arrests. Here the facts were sufficient to satisfy the "reasonable suspicion" necessary for a valid investigatory stop under Terry. Cf. New v. State, 674 So.2d 1377 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) ( ); Childs v. State, 671 So.2d 781 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 671 So.2d 783 (Ala.1995) ( ).
The appellant further contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of the tires because the officers searched his car without a search warrant and without his consent. To determine whether the appellant has standing to challenge the search under the Fourth Amendment we must first determine whether the appellant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the object of the search. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).
Carlisle v. State, 533 So.2d 645, 647 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), quoting United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859, 104 S.Ct. 184, 78 L.Ed.2d 163 (1983). (Emphasis added.)
This court, further explaining the "abandoned property rule," stated the following in Harrell v. State, 555 So.2d 257, 260 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 555 So.2d 263 (Ala.1989):
(Emphasis added.)
Prior Alabama case law has examined the issue of "abandoned property" where the property was abandoned by "actions" during a police pursuit or investigation. See Coslett v. State, 641 So.2d 302 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) ( ); Smith v. State, 623 So.2d 382 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) ( ); Atwell v. State, 594 So.2d 202 (Ala.Cr.App.1991) cert. denied, Inabinett v. State, 594 So.2d 214 (Ala.1992) ( ); Jones v. State, 572 So.2d 504 (Ala.Cr.App.1990) ( ); Barrow v. State, 494 So.2d 834 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) ( ).
This is Alabama's first opportunity to consider whether words indicating a lack of ownership can constitute abandonment. "A number of courts have held that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martin v. State
...voluntarily abandon property, they forfeit any expectation of privacy in it that they might have had."'" Thompson v. State, 680 So.2d 1014, 1016 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (quoting Carlisle v. State, 533 So.2d 645, 647 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), quoting in turn United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d 1169, 117......
-
Woodall v. State
...miscitation of a Code section in an indictment does not void an indictment that otherwise states an offense." Thompson v. State, 680 So.2d 1014, 1018 (Ala.Cr.App.1996). The indictment against Woodall was not vague and was sufficient to give him notice of the charges against B. Woodall claim......
-
Tolbert v. State
...1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859, 104 S.Ct. 184, 78 L.Ed.2d 163 (1983). (Emphasis added.)" Thompson v. State, 680 So.2d 1014, 1016 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).The United States Supreme Court addressed the warrantless search of the contents of a cellular telephone in Riley ......
-
Dedeaux v. State
...reserved for appellate review, would be waived by the entry of a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. See Thompson v. State, 680 So.2d 1014, 1018 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996); Prim v. State, 616 So.2d 381, 382 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). Thus, those claims are precluded by Rule 32.2(a)(3), Ala. R.Crim.P. Se......