State of Alabama v. Christopher Craig

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-11-0808 S t a t e o f Alabama v. Christopher Craig Appeal from Coffee C i r c u i t Court (CC-11-108; CC-11-109) WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . The S t a t e o f A l a b a m a a p p e a l s suppressing discovered evidence during of drugs a warrantless d r i v e n by Christopher the c i r c u i t court's decision Craig. and search drug paraphernalia of a v e h i c l e being F o r the reasons t h a t f o l l o w , CR-11-0808 t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r and remands t h e cause f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. On M a r c h 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 , a C o f f e e indictment charging controlled substance, possession o f d r u g p a r a p h e r n a l i a , s e e § 13A-12-260, A l a . Code 1975. all Craig C o u n t y g r a n d j u r y i s s u e d an with unlawful see § 13A-12-212, A l a . Code On A u g u s t 24, 2 0 1 1 , C r a i g f i l e d argued illegal that search s h o u l d be the drug evidence stop. was of h i s v e h i c l e ; t h e r e f o r e , Craig's testimony a 1975, and In h i s motion, the product o f an a l lthe evidence suppressed. On S e p t e m b e r 14, 2011, t h e c i r c u i t on of a motion t o suppress evidence s e i z e d during the t r a f f i c Craig possession motion, during o f one w i t n e s s , which Officer the court held a State hearing presented S k i p Neuwien. During the the h e a r i n g , O f f i c e r Neuwien t e s t i f i e d t h a t C r a i g ' s l i c e n s e p l a t e was a f f i x e d i n c o r r e c t l y and was r e g i s t e r e d t o a n o t h e r v e h i c l e . Craig was able to frustrate Officer p o s i t i o n h i s p a t r o l car behind Neuwien's his p a t r o l car behind to C r a i g t o p u l l him over f o r the i m p r o p e r t a g , so O f f i c e r N e u w i e n summoned O f f i c e r Millard for assistance. attempts Christopher O f f i c e r M i l l a r d was a b l e t o p o s i t i o n C r a i g , a t w h i c h t i m e he a c t i v a t e d t h e 2 CR-11-0808 p a t r o l car's lights. C r a i g , however, c o n t i n u e d p r e t t y g o o d ways b e f o r e several places stopping Craig saw stopped, Craig lean both his license. approached Craig eventually furtive console of the v e h i c l e . Officer asked Craig and and O f f i c e r make and over passed parking l o t . O f f i c e r Neuwien body d r i v e "a Craig fast-food restaurant movements t o w a r d s t h e c e n t e r Neuwien ( R . 7.) where he c o u l d have s t o p p e d b e f o r e i n a Burger King After Millard h i s stopped." to for his driver's C r a i g gave O f f i c e r N e u w i e n an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a r d as opposed t o a d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e . At that point, O f f i c e r M i l l a r d ordered C r a i g t o get out of the v e h i c l e . As C r a i g was g e t t i n g o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e , O f f i c e r N e u w i e n saw s o m e t h i n g s h i n y i n C r a i g ' s out hand. The s h i n y o b j e c t t o be an " e x t r e m e l y s h a r p - p o i n t e d could have been used as a weapon. turned p a i r of tweezers" (R. 9, 12.) that Officer Neuwien e x p l a i n e d t h a t C r a i g had t h e t w e e z e r s " c l e n c h e d i n h i s fist i n a manner [ t h a t ] l o o k e d them." (R. 42.) as i f [ h e ] was concerned t o use Because C r a i g got out of the v e h i c l e w i t h a s h a r p o b j e c t t h a t c o u l d have been u s e d a weapon, were going for their safety, so they the o f f i c e r s "went ahead and s e c u r e d " C r a i g b y p l a c i n g h i m i n h a n d c u f f s and p u t t i n g h i m i n 3 CR-11-0808 a patrol car. (R. 9.) After handcuffing Craig, Officer N e u w i e n l o o k e d a t t h e s e a t i n t h e v e h i c l e where C r a i g h a d b e e n s i t t i n g and saw a .32 c a l i b e r b u l l e t . Upon s e e i n g t h e b u l l e t , O f f i c e r N e u w i e n became c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e r e was a gun i n t h e vehicle. O f f i c e r Neuwien asked C r a i g i f there was a gun i n t h e v e h i c l e , a n d C r a i g s a i d t h a t t h e r e was n o t . O f f i c e r N e u w i e n e x p l a i n e d t h a t C r a i g was n o t u n d e r a r r e s t a t t h a t p o i n t and t h a t he w o u l d have h a d a c c e s s t o any weapons in t h e v e h i c l e when a l l o w e d back i n t o h i s v e h i c l e . e x p l a i n e d t h a t he was c o n c e r n e d f o r h i s s a f e t y a f t e r C r a i g ' s f u r t i v e movements, He also observing t h e s h a r p t w e e z e r s , and t h e b u l l e t . Thus, O f f i c e r N e u w i e n s e a r c h e d i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e c o n s o l e o f t h e v e h i c l e where C r a i g h a d made t h e f u r t i v e During the search, smoking device" small p i s t o l . " between the sitting. and (R. seat i n t h e cup h o l d e r a "Kel-Tec 10.) and (R. 10.) O f f i c e r Neuwien the The movements. found a " g l a s s .32, w h i c h i s an extremely .32 c a l i b e r p i s t o l was " r i g h t console" where Craig had The o f f i c e r s a l s o saw s e v e r a l l o o s e i n the console. possession of drug p a r a p h e r n a l i a . possession of drug p a r a p h e r n a l i a , 4 pipe been pills C r a i g was t h e n a r r e s t e d f o r He was later possession charged with of a c o n t r o l l e d CR-11-0808 substance, and being a convicted felon i n possession of a firearm. At the the c o n c l u s i o n of the h e a r i n g , the S t a t e argued t h a t search of Long, 463 (1968), U.S. justified (1983), Terry the armed and t h a t he was circuit v e h i c l e was 1032 because C r a i g was of the the officers he had dangerous. d a n g e r o u s was search, and was relying on s e a r c h was handcuffed Long the and Terry. d e c i s i o n of not a proper because appeal, of Craig's the articulable the State and facts d a n g e r t o them. U.S. belief in a patrol 1 that belief the car. the S t a t e ' s the 332 officers' circuit Supreme C o u r t of had court, the United (2009), h e l d t h a t the and i t suppress. r e a s s e r t s i t s argument a proper under reasonable t h a t C r a i g was This Court The position j u s t i f i e d f o r the Instead, v e h i c l e was officers 392 s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o an a r r e s t , granted Craig's motion to search reasonable c o u r t , however, d i d not address under Ohio, v. not reasonable because, at t h a t time S t a t e s i n A r i z o n a v. G a n t , 556 U.S. On v. Michigan C r a i g argued t h a t the t h a t t h e s e a r c h o f t h e v e h i c l e was safety a under armed and agrees. 5 Long belief that and the Terry based t h a t he posed on a CR-11-0808 Initially, t h i s Court notes: "'"When e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e a r e p r e s u m e d t o be c o r r e c t , " Ex p a r t e Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 ( A l a . 1994); "[w]e indulge a presumption that the t r i a l court p r o p e r l y r u l e d on t h e w e i g h t and p r o b a t i v e f o r c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , " B r a d l e y v. S t a t e , 494 So. 2d 750, 761 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 5 ) , a f f ' d , 494 So. 2d 772 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; and we make " ' a l l t h e r e a s o n a b l e inferences and c r e d i b i l i t y c h o i c e s s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' " Kennedy v. S t a t e , 640 So. 2d 22, 26 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) , q u o t i n g B r a d l e y , 494 So. 2d a t 761. " [ A ] n y c o n f l i c t s i n t h e t e s t i m o n y o r credibility of witnesses during a suppression h e a r i n g i s a m a t t e r f o r r e s o l u t i o n by t h e t r i a l court A b s e n t a g r o s s abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n , a trial court's resolution of [such] conflict[s] s h o u l d n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l . " S h e e l y v. S t a t e , 629 So. 2d 23, 29 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993) ( c i t a t i o n s omitted). However, " ' [ w ] h e r e t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t was u n d i s p u t e d t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e i s i n a p p l i c a b l e , and t h e [ a p p e l l a t e ] C o u r t w i l l s i t i n j u d g m e n t on t h e e v i d e n c e de n o v o , i n d u l g i n g no presumption in favor of the trial court's a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o those f a c t s . ' " S t a t e v. H i l l , 690 So. 2d 1201, 1203 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , q u o t i n g S t i l e s v. Brown, 380 So. 2d 792, 794 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . "'"[W]hen t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a p p l i e s t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s , no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . " ' " Ex p a r t e Jackson, 886 So. 2d 155, 159 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g H i l l , 690 So. 2d a t 1203, q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e Agee, 669 So. 2d 102, 104 ( A l a . 1995) . A trial court's u l t i m a t e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n on a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s b a s e d on a g i v e n s e t o f f a c t s i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w t h a t i s r e v i e w e d de novo on a p p e a l . See S t a t e v. S m i t h , 785 So. 2d 1169 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . ' " 6 CR-11-0808 C.B.D. v. S t a t e , (quoting Crim. State App. 90 So. 3d 227, 237 v. H a r g e t t , 2005)). 935 "Because ( A l a . Crim. App. 2011) So. 2d 1200, 1203-04 ( A l a . only t e s t i f i e d at [Craig's] suppression the a r r e s t i n g officer[] h e a r i n g , and t h e evidence was ... u n d i s p u t e d , the d e c i s i o n of the t r i a l reviewed W o r t h y v. S t a t e , 91 So. 3d 762, 765 ( A l a . de n o v o . " C r i m . App. 2011) ( c i t i n g S t a t e v. H i l l , (Ala. c o u r t s h o u l d be 690 So. 2d 1201, 1203 1996)). Further, i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that w a r r a n t l e s s searches seizures a r e p e r se u n r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r t h e F o u r t h Amendment unless the State e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t the search or s e i z u r e within 485, a recognized 488 exception. ( A l a . 1985). Ex p a r t e Exceptions Hilley, a search incident to a emergency s i t u a t i o n s ; circumstances; for Tucker, 5) p r o b a b l e arrest; 4) requirement searches; 3) hot p u r s u i t or cause c o u p l e d with a n d 6) an i n v e s t i g a t o r y d e t e n t i o n weapons p u r s u a n t parte lawful 667 falls 484 So. 2d t o the warrant i n c l u d e : 1) o b j e c t s i n p l a i n v i e w ; 2) c o n s e n s u a l and exigent search t o T e r r y v. O h i o , 392 U.S. 1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . So. 2d 1339, 1343 to the Ex ( A l a . 1995) . Another requirement i s the recognized exception "automobile e x c e p t i o n , " which allows law enforcement t o search 7 warrant and CR-11-0808 an a u t o m o b i l e b a s e d on p r o b a b l e c a u s e a l o n e . S t a t e v. B l a c k , 987 2006) So. 2d 1177, 1180 ( A l a . Crim. App. P e n n s y l v a n i a v. L a b r o n , 518 U.S. 938, 940 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ) . Court must determined within determine that one requirement whether the c i r c u i t Thus, t h i s court the search of C r a i g ' s v e h i c l e of these (quoting recognized exceptions correctly d i d not t o the fall warrant o f t h e F o u r t h Amendment. " I n T e r r y v. O h i o , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. C t . 1868, 20 L. E d . 2d 889 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , [ t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ] u p h e l d the v a l i d i t y of a p r o t e c t i v e search [of a person] in the absence of probable cause to arrest u n r e a s o n a b l e t o deny a p o l i c e o f f i c e r t h e r i g h t f o r weapons because i t is 'to n e u t r a l i z e t h e t h r e a t o f p h y s i c a l harm,' i d . , a t 24, 88 S. C t . , a t 1881, when he p o s s e s s e s an a r t i c u l a b l e s u s p i c i o n t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l is the armed a n d d a n g e r o u s . " Supreme Court L o n g , 463 U.S. a t 1034. extended i t s holding I n Long, i n Terry passenger c o m p a r t m e n t o f an a u t o m o b i l e . 1049-50. The C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t " i n v e s t i g a t i v e d e t e n t i o n s involving suspects danger t o p o l i c e the i n vehicles officers." Long, to the are e s p e c i a l l y 463 U.S. a t fraught with L o n g , 463 U.S. a t 1047. " p o l i c e may o r d e r p e r s o n s o u t o f an a u t o m o b i l e 8 Thus, during a CR-11-0808 stop f o r a t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n L o n g , 463 U.S. a t 1047-48. F u r t h e r , t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t , a f t e r a p e r s o n has b e e n removed f r o m t h e v e h i c l e , o f f i c e r s may the passenger a conduct a p r o t e c t i v e search of c o m p a r t m e n t o f t h e v e h i c l e i f t h e o f f i c e r s have reasonable d a n g e r o u s and belief that the driver or an occupant t h a t t h e r e i s a weapon i n t h e v e h i c l e . 463 U.S. a t 1049-50; see a l s o Ex p a r t e C a r p e n t e r , 627, ( A l a . 1991) 631 between arise police from surrounding passenger that an and the a 592 is Long, So. 2d (recognizing that " [ r ] o a d s i d e encounters suspects possible suspect"; are hazardous, presence of therefore, and weapons officers danger in may may the area search the compartment of a v e h i c l e i f t h e y r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e occupant vehicle). i s dangerous Specifically, and the Court that a weapon is in the held: " [ T ] h e s e a r c h o f t h e p a s s e n g e r c o m p a r t m e n t o f an a u t o m o b i l e , l i m i t e d t o t h o s e a r e a s i n w h i c h a weapon may be p l a c e d o r h i d d e n , i s p e r m i s s i b l e i f t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r possesses a reasonable b e l i e f based on ' s p e c i f i c and a r t i c u l a b l e f a c t s w h i c h , taken t o g e t h e r w i t h the r a t i o n a l i n f e r e n c e s from those f a c t s , reasonably warrant' the o f f i c e r s i n b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e s u s p e c t i s d a n g e r o u s and t h e s u s p e c t may g a i n i m m e d i a t e c o n t r o l o f weapons." Long, 463 Terry/Long] U.S. at 1049-50. "The reasonableness s e a r c h i s measured o b j e c t i v e l y . " 9 of [a G r a n t h a m v. C i t y CR-11-0808 of Tuscaloosa, [Ms. ( A l a . C r i m . App. CR-11-1093, Nov. 2012) 2, 2012] So. 3d , ( c i t a t i o n s and q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . Thus, " [ i ] f a r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t p e r s o n w o u l d b e l i e v e t h a t h i s s a f e t y , o r t h e s a f e t y o f o t h e r s , i s e n d a n g e r e d , he may a limited search of outer clothing compartment of a v e h i c l e f o r weapons]." [or Id. the conduct passenger Finally, "[i]f, w h i l e conducting a l e g i t i m a t e T e r r y search of the i n t e r i o r the automobile, contraband U.S. officer should, o t h e r t h a n weapons, he to i g n o r e the require the contraband, i t s suppression a t 1050 (citations and omitted). here, c l e a r l y c a n n o t be the i n such as discover required F o u r t h Amendment does circumstances." of Long, not 463 1 The c i r c u i t c o u r t , r e l y i n g on t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n A r i z o n a v. G a n t , 556 U.S. 332 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , h e l d t h a t t h e s e a r c h was n o t a p r o p e r s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o an a r r e s t . The r e c o r d i s c l e a r , h o w e v e r , t h a t C r a i g was not a r r e s t e d u n t i l a f t e r the o f f i c e r s found the drug evidence. B e f o r e t h a t , he was s u b j e c t e d t o a p r o t e c t i v e d e t e n t i o n o n l y . Therefore, the circuit court's application o f Gant was erroneous. I n s t e a d , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d have a n a l y z e d t h e l e g a l i t y o f t h e s e a r c h u n d e r t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g s i n L o n g , 463 U.S. 1032, and T e r r y , 392 U.S. 1. See G a n t , 556 U.S. a t 352 ( S c a l i a , J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) ( " I t must be b o r n e i n m i n d t h a t [ t h e h o l d i n g i n Gant r e l a t e s ] o n l y [ t o ] a r u l e a u t o m a t i c a l l y p e r m i t t i n g a s e a r c h [ o f a v e h i c l e ] when t h e d r i v e r o r an o c c u p a n t i s a r r e s t e d . Where no a r r e s t i s made, we have h e l d t h a t o f f i c e r s may search the car i f they r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e 'the s u s p e c t i s d a n g e r o u s and ... may g a i n i m m e d i a t e c o n t r o l o f weapons.' M i c h i g a n v. L o n g , 4 63 U.S. 1 10 CR-11-0808 H e r e , C r a i g was p r o p e r l y t a g on h i s v e h i c l e . s t o p p e d f o r h a v i n g an i m p r o p e r While attempting t o p u l l Craig's vehicle over, both o f f i c e r s n o t i c e d t h a t C r a i g drove w e l l beyond t h e distance necessary t o stop movements t o w a r d t h e c e n t e r State, 983 So. 2d and t h a t made furtive console of the v e h i c l e . Camp v. 1 1 4 1 , 1147 Craig ( A l a . Crim. App. 2007) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t f u r t i v e movements a r e a f a c t o r t o c o n s i d e r in determining probable cause w h e t h e r o f f i c e r s have r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n o r to justify a search). When Craig finally s t o p p e d h i s v e h i c l e , he f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e a d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e . Then, when a s k e d t o g e t o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e , he g o t o u t w i t h a p a i r of extremely sharp tweezers c l i n c h e d i n h i s f i s t like a 1032, 1049 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . " ) ; s e e a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v. G r i f f i n , 589 F.3d 148, 154 n.8 ( 4 t h C i r . 2009) ("Because G r i f f i n was n o t y e t a r r e s t e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e s e a r c h , A r i z o n a v. G a n t , [556 U.S. 332] ( 2 0 0 9 ) , i s i n a p p o s i t e . That case h e l d t h a t p o l i c e may s e a r c h a v e h i c l e i n c i d e n t t o a r e c e n t o c c u p a n t ' s a r r e s t as a u t h o r i z e d b y C h i m e l v. C a l i f o r n i a , 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. C t . 2034, 23 L. E d . 2d 685 (1969) ' o n l y when t h e a r r e s t e e i s unsecured and w i t h i n r e a c h i n g distance of the passenger compartment a t t h e time o f t h e s e a r c h . ' G a n t , [556 U.S. a t 343]. T h i s r e a s o n i n g does n o t e x t e n d t o p r o t e c t i v e s e a r c h e s u n d e r Long b e c a u s e i n a T e r r y s t o p where t h e s u s p e c t h a s n o t b e e n a r r e s t e d , ' t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a c c e s s t o weapons i n t h e v e h i c l e a l w a y s e x i s t s , s i n c e t h e d r i v e r o r p a s s e n g e r w i l l be a l l o w e d t o r e t u r n t o t h e v e h i c l e when t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n i s completed.' I d . a t [352]. ( S c a l i a , J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) . " ) . 11 CR-11-0808 weapon. A t t h a t p o i n t , C r a i g was h a n d c u f f e d , noticed a bullet The officers placing him searched on t h e s e a t then in detained a patrol the passenger where Craig car. C r a i g h a d been for their compartment officers] circumstances in their of t h i s d a n g e r i f he were p e r m i t t e d 463 U.S. a t 1050. Further, clearly that a weapon search i n the v e h i c l e . of C r a i g ' s Accordingly, evidence [Craig] seeing a b u l l e t the c i r c u i t the constitutionally posed court's and t h e c a u s e Long, order officers' 392 U.S. a t 24. suppressing i s remanded the for further B u r k e , and J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r . 12 a permissible REMANDED. Welch, Kellum, [the on t h e c a r proceedings. REVERSED AND and i n their b e l i e f that Craig a t 1049-50, a n d T e r r y , i s reversed vehicle justified Consequently, v e h i c l e was u n d e r L o n g , 463 U.S. officers to reenter h i s v e h i c l e . " after by . case s e a t , t h e o f f i c e r s were r e a s o n a b l e had the of C r a i g ' s belief reasonable sitting. protection Thereafter, f o u n d t h e d r u g s and d r u g p a r a p h e r n a l i a "The and t h e o f f i c e r s

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.