G. M. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/14/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 CR-10-1083 G.M. v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-53387) WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . G.M. appeals adjudication substance. 4, 2011, his guilty-plea f o r unlawful possession juvenile-delinquency of a See § 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. controlled On M a r c h G.M. f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e i n w h i c h he CR-10-1083 argued t h a t t h e s e a r c h and subsequent s e i z u r e o f c o c a i n e his wallet violated Constitution Alabama t h e 4 t h a n d 1 4 t h Amendments of the United Constitution States o f 1901. Following j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d G.M.'s m o t i o n . " t r u e " t o t h e charge substance motion and A r t . from to the I, § 5 of the a hearing, the T h e r e a f t e r , G.M. p l e a d e d of unlawful possession of a controlled and r e s e r v e d t h e r i g h t t o appeal t h e d e n i a l o f h i s t o suppress. During evidence the suppression indicating that hearing, G.M. the State presented a n d E.M., G.M.'s c o u s i n a n d c l o s e f r i e n d , were s t u d e n t s a t Homewood H i g h S c h o o l , a p u b l i c school. for E.M. was b r o u g h t having school a cellular policy. After t o the assistant p r i n c i p a l ' s telephone E.M. on campus, denied having office i n violation of the telephone, A s s i s t a n t P r i n c i p a l E d d i e Cunningham u s e d a m e t a l d e t e c t o r t o s c a n E.M. i n an a t t e m p t t o l o c a t e t h e c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e . m e t a l d e t e c t o r sounded as i t p a s s e d The o v e r E.M.'s b a c k p o c k e t . Cunningham t h e n i n s t r u c t e d E.M. t o remove t h e c o n t e n t s o f h i s pocket, cellular which c o n t a i n e d E.M.'s w a l l e t telephone. Cunningham and a b a t t e r y f o r a opened d i s c o v e r e d s e v e r a l s m a l l bags o f c o c a i n e . 2 the wallet and CR-10-1083 A f t e r discovering the cocaine, Cunningham a s k e d E.M. who he h a d r i d d e n t o s c h o o l w i t h t h a t m o r n i n g a n d w i t h whom he h a d been a s s o c i a t i n g t h a t day. been w i t h G.M. e a r l i e r language l e a r n i n g E.M. t o l d Cunningham t h a t he h a d t h a t day. ("ELL") t e a c h e r , for E.M., s u g g e s t e d t h a t s c h o o l ELL teacher 10.) At that point, who was t h e r e t o t r a n s l a t e officials Maddox, t h a t cocaine Maddox observations with G.M. 1 principal, explained G.M.'s the investigation. that, based on his personal o f E.M. a n d G.M. a n d t h e "web" o f i n f o r m a t i o n students and teachers, theboys' " i n t e r a c t [ i o n s ] one a n o t h e r [ w e r e ] n o t t y p i c a l of [the] student[s] at Homewood H i g h S c h o o l . " (R. 28-29.) D r . Maddox t e s t i f i e d E.M. association and b e h a v i o r a n d G.M.'s c l o s e officials to believe that they B e c a u s e E.M. a n d G.M. were c l o s e earlier that were i n a gang i n a gang, f o rquestioning E.M. a n d G.M. do n o t s p e a k E n g l i s h 3 about well. that l e d school together. f r i e n d s , h a d been d a y , a n d were p o s s i b l y c a l l e d G.M. i n t o h i s o f f i c e 1 The Dr. K e v i n h a d b e e n f o u n d on E.M. a n d t h a t name h a d b e e n m e n t i o n e d d u r i n g from other question d e s c r i b e d E.M. a n d G.M. as " p e a s [ i n ] a p o d . " (R. Cunningham i n f o r m e d t h e s c h o o l ' s Dr. an E n g l i s h together D r . Maddox cocaine. CR-10-1083 Once G.M. a r r i v e d i n t h e p r i n c i p a l ' s office, D r . Maddox e x p l a i n e d t o G.M. t h a t h i s name h a d been m e n t i o n e d d u r i n g an investigation of another "anything [ h i m ] today on student at school s u p p o s e [ d ] t o have [ t h e r e ] . " did not. for and asked G.M. i f he h a d that [he was] not (R. 17.) G.M. r e p l i e d t h a t he D r . Maddox t h e n i n f o r m e d G.M. t h a t , o u t o f c o n c e r n student safety, " [ h e ] was g o i n g t o conduct make s u r e [G.M.] d i d n ' t have a n y t h i n g G.M. was c o o p e r a t i v e a n d e m p t i e d a search t o ... on h i m . " h i s pockets (R. 17.) as i n s t r u c t e d . W h i l e l o o k i n g t h r o u g h t h e i t e m s G.M. p l a c e d on t h e t a b l e , D r . Maddox d i s c o v e r e d a s m a l l b a g o f c o c a i n e i n s i d e t h e p o c k e t o f G.M.'s w a l l e t . basis The c o c a i n e f o u n d i n G.M.'s w a l l e t f o r m e d t h e of h i s juvenile adjudication. j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d G.M.'s m o t i o n On a p p e a l , G.M. a r g u e s h i s motion wallet. S p e c i f i c a l l y , he c o n t e n d s wallet. the hearing, the t o suppress. that thejuvenile denying reasonable After t o suppress s u s p i c i o n necessary the cocaine court erred i n found in his t h a t Dr. Maddox l a c k e d t h e to justify the search of h i s A c c o r d i n g t o G.M., h i s a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h E.M., on whom s c h o o l o f f i c i a l s h a d f o u n d c o c a i n e e a r l i e r t h a t d a y , was t h e sole basis f o rsearching G.M.'s w a l l e t . 4 From there, G.M. CR-10-1083 asserts that wrongdoer his i s not "association with sufficient to a give known rise or suspected a reasonable to s u s p i c i o n " ; t h e r e f o r e , the search of h i s w a l l e t v i o l a t e d h i s constitutional rights. (G.M.'s b r i e f , at 24.) This Court agrees. In New J e r s e y v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. Supreme C o u r t standard by a 325, 341-43 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , of the U n i t e d S t a t e s h e l d t h a t the appropriate f o r a s s e s s i n g the l e g a l i t y of a search of a public-school official is reasonable reaching i t s d e c i s i o n , the Court student explained: suspicion. "[T]he l e g a l i t y of a search of a student should d e p e n d s i m p l y on t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s , u n d e r a l l t h e circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness o f any s e a r c h i n v o l v e s a t w o f o l d i n q u i r y : f i r s t , one must c o n s i d e r 'whether t h e ... a c t i o n was j u s t i f i e d a t i t s i n c e p t i o n , ' T e r r y v. O h i o , 392 U.S. [1,] 20, 88 S.Ct. [1868,] 1879 [ ( 1 9 6 8 ) ] ; s e c o n d , one must d e t e r m i n e whether the s e a r c h as a c t u a l l y c o n d u c t e d 'was r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e d i n scope t o the c i r c u m s t a n c e s which j u s t i f i e d the i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the f i r s t p l a c e , ' i b i d . Under o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a s e a r c h o f a s t u d e n t by a t e a c h e r o r o t h e r s c h o o l o f f i c i a l w i l l be ' j u s t i f i e d a t i t s i n c e p t i o n ' when t h e r e a r e r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s f o r s u s p e c t i n g t h a t t h e s e a r c h w i l l t u r n up e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s t u d e n t has v i o l a t e d o r i s v i o l a t i n g e i t h e r the law or the r u l e s o f the s c h o o l . Such a s e a r c h w i l l be p e r m i s s i b l e i n i t s s c o p e when t h e m e a s u r e s adopted are reasonably r e l a t e d t o the o b j e c t i v e s of t h e s e a r c h and n o t e x c e s s i v e l y i n t r u s i v e i n l i g h t o f t h e age and s e x o f t h e s t u d e n t and t h e n a t u r e o f t h e infraction. 5 the In CR-10-1083 " T h i s s t a n d a r d w i l l , we t r u s t , n e i t h e r u n d u l y burden the e f f o r t s of school a u t h o r i t i e s t o maintain order i n t h e i r schools nor authorize unrestrained i n t r u s i o n s upon t h e p r i v a c y o f s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . By focusing attention on the question of reasonableness, t h e s t a n d a r d w i l l spare t e a c h e r s and school administrators the necessity of schooling t h e m s e l v e s i n t h e n i c e t i e s o f p r o b a b l e cause and p e r m i t them t o r e g u l a t e t h e i r c o n d u c t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d i c t a t e s o f r e a s o n a n d common s e n s e . At the same t i m e , t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s s t a n d a r d s h o u l d e n s u r e t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f s t u d e n t s w i l l be i n v a d e d no more t h a n i s n e c e s s a r y t o a c h i e v e t h e l e g i t i m a t e e n d of p r e s e r v i n g order i n t h e s c h o o l s . " Id. a t 341-43 (footnotes omitted). Further, "'In reviewing reasonable suspicion determinations, c o u r t s must l o o k a t t h e " ' t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' " t o see whether the detaining officer had a " ' p a r t i c u l a r i z e d and o b j e c t i v e b a s i s ' " f o r s u s p e c t i n g wrongdoing. U n i t e d S t a t e s v. A r v i z u , 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S. C t . 744, 151 L. E d . 2d 740 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C o r t e z , 449 U.S. 4 1 1 , 417-418, 101 S. C t . 690, 66 L. E d . 2d 621 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . " T h i s p r o c e s s a l l o w s o f f i c e r s t o draw on their own experience and s p e c i a l i z e d training t o make i n f e r e n c e s from and deductions about the cumulative i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o them t h a t 'might w e l l e l u d e an untrained person.'" A r v i z u , 534 U.S. a t 273, 122 S. C t . 744 ( q u o t i n g C o r t e z , 449 U.S. a t 418, 101 S. C t . 6 9 0 ) . ' " Muse v. S t a t e , 42 So. 3d 789, 791-92 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v. Odom, 872 So. 2d 887, 890 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003)). "'[T]he determination o f reasonable 6 s u s p i c i o n must be CR-10-1083 based on commonsense behavior.'" Cir. judgments and i n f e r e n c e s about human U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Nunez, 455 F.3d 1223, 1226 ( 1 1 t h 2006) (quoting Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000)). T h i s Court has e x p l a i n e d : "'"Reasonable s u s p i c i o n i s a l e s s demanding s t a n d a r d t h a n p r o b a b l e c a u s e , " A l a b a m a v. W h i t e , 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S. C t . 2412, 2416, 110 L. E d . 2d 301 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , r e q u i r i n g o n l y t h a t t h e d e t a i n i n g o f f i c e r s "have a particularized and o b j e c t i v e b a s i s f o r suspecting the person detained of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y , " Webb v. S t a t e , 500 So. 2d 1280, 1281 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 500 So. 2d 1282 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . ' " State v. D a v i s , 7 So. 3d 468, 470 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilsher v . S t a t e , 611 So. 2d 1175, 1179 ( A l a . C r i m . App. Although 1992)). demanding standard association with insufficient to than a reasonable probable gang create a or suspicion cause, with a reasonable d e f e n d a n t i s engaged i n wrong-doing. is a less a defendant's mere known criminal i s suspicion that the See S t a t e v . J o n e s , 114 N.M. 147, 151, 835 P.2d 863, 867 (N.M. C t . App. 1992) ( h o l d i n g t h a t mere a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h a known gang member does n o t amount to reasonable connecting suspicion because the o f f i c e r s had "nothing t h i s i n d i v i d u a l defendant t o a p a r t i c u l a r crime or 7 CR-10-1083 crimes, State except the l i k e l i h o o d v. N e a l , (holding 142 N.M. that a that he was a gang member"); 176, 1 8 5 , 164 P.3d 57, 66 "[d]efendant's mere association (2007) with a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n ... , who was u n d e r s u r v e i l l a n c e i n an o n g o i n g drug i n v e s t i g a t i o n , was i n s u f f i c i e n t suspicion 886, a o f Defendant 890 (Minn. suspected suspicion); Cir. its ..."); reasonable v. Varnado, State t o create 582 N.W.2d 1998) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e mere a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h drug United dealer States does not provide v. Coggins, reasonable 986 F . 2 d 651, 655 (3d 1993) ("Mere a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h a known c r i m i n a l c a n n o t on own be a b a s i s Ybarra v. I l l i n o i s , f o r a 'reasonable suspicion.'") 444 U. S. 85, 91 (quoting (1979)). H e r e , D r . Maddox's b a s i s f o r s e a r c h i n g G.M.'s w a l l e t was Dr. Maddox's b e l i e f and information individual, t h a t G.M. m i g h t be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a gang that, earlier E.M., on whom s c h o o l o f f i c i a l s h a d f o u n d G.M.'s a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h insufficient t o create i n v o l v e d i n wrongdoing. 867. i n t h e d a y , G.M. was w i t h an Therefore, E.M. a n d a gang, w i t h o u t a reasonable more, was s u s p i c i o n t h a t G.M. was J o n e s , 114 N.M. a t 151, 835 P.2d a t the j u v e n i l e court erroneously motion t o suppress. cocaine. A c c o r d i n g l y, 8 d e n i e d G.M.'s t h e j udgment of the CR-10-1083 juvenile further c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d , and this cause i s remanded f o r proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Welch, Kellum, Burke, and Joiner, 9 J J . , concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.