State of Alabama v. Edwin M. Moore

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-11-1079 S t a t e o f Alabama v. Edwin M. Moore Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CC-12-53) Court 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 to suppress evidence of crack thec i r c u i t court's decision cocaine discovered during a s e a r c h o f E d w i n M. Moore's v e h i c l e a f t e r Moore was s t o p p e d f o r a traffic violation. F o r the reasons that f o l l o w , t h i s Court CR-11-1079 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 a n d remands t h i s c a u s e f o r further proceedings. On January 20, 2012, i s s u e d an i n d i c t m e n t Montgomery County grand c h a r g i n g Moore w i t h u n l a w f u l of a c o n t r o l l e d substance, 1975. a jury possession s e e § 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code On M a r c h 13, 2012, Moore f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s crack cocaine s e i z e d during the t r a f f i c stop. Moore that argued illegal search the crack of cocaine his vehicle; was the In h i s motion, the product therefore, o f an i t should be a hearing on t h e h e a r i n g , C o r p o r a l Mark W e l l s , an suppressed. On A p r i l 3, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t Moore's m o t i o n . During court held o f f i c e r w i t h t h e Montgomery P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t , w h i l e on p a t r o l on J u l y 23, 2011, he saw a v e h i c l e r u n a s t o p s i g n ; t h e r e f o r e , he s t o p p e d ticket. side According window vehicle. for and t o C p l . W e l l s , he a p p r o a c h e d t h e d r i v e r ' s saw that smell vehicle. there were At that point, C p l . Wells h i s information. could the v e h i c l e to give the d r i v e r a a While speaking strong C p l . Wells odor of three people asked the d r i v e r , Moore, w i t h Moore, C p l . W e l l s alcohol emanating t h e n went b a c k t o h i s p a t r o l 2 i n the from the car t o run CR-11-1079 Moore's i n f o r m a t i o n t h r o u g h if t h e law enforcement system t o see t h e r e were any o u t s t a n d i n g w a r r a n t s f o r Moore's a r r e s t . A f t e r d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t Moore d i d n o t have any o u t s t a n d i n g warrants for his arrest, C p l . Wells returned t o Moore. At t h a t p o i n t , C p l . W e l l s a s k e d Moore t o g e t o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e so t h a t he c o u l d o b s e r v e Moore f u r t h e r t o d e t e r m i n e Moore was u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l . the door t o g e t out of the v e h i c l e , f l o o r b o a r d of the v e h i c l e . on h i s e x p e r i e n c e , cocaine. According When Moore o p e n e d C p l . Wells p l a s t i c bag c o n t a i n i n g a w h i t e substance saw a clear on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e C p l . Wells e x p l a i n e d t h a t , based he b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e b a g c o n t a i n e d to Cpl. Wells, packaged i n the corner the white substance crack was o f t h e b a g , w h i c h was t h e way he h a d always seen c r a c k c o c a i n e packaged. crack cocaine, C p l . Wells asked A f t e r s e e i n g t h e bag of a l l the occupants t o g e t o u t so t h a t he c o u l d s a f e l y s e i z e t h e d r u g s . the passengers whether of the c a r Once a l l were o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e , C p l . W e l l s s e i z e d t h e bag o f c r a c k c o c a i n e t h a t f o r m s t h e b a s i s o f M o o r e ' s c h a r g e o f unlawful possession Meredith Alvin King of a c o n t r o l l e d substance. Moore, Moore's e x - w i f e , were with Moore when 3 testified C p l . Wells t h a t she a n d stopped them. CR-11-1079 Meredith t e s t i f i e d buy t h a t t h e y had been t o t h e l i q u o r s t o r e t o v o d k a b u t t h a t no one i n t h e v e h i c l e h a d b e e n drinking. A c c o r d i n g t o M e r e d i t h , w h i l e d r i v i n g home, Moore d i d n o t come to a complete stop a t a stop s i g n , by C p l . W e l l s . Meredith a n d t h e y were p u l l e d testified over that C p l . Wells got both M o o r e ' s a n d h e r i n f o r m a t i o n a n d went b a c k t o h i s p a t r o l c a r . When C p l . W e l l s r e t u r n e d , he o r d e r e d Moore t o g e t o u t o f t h e car. He then ordered Meredith and K i n g out of thec a r . According to Meredith, " C o r p o r a l W e l l s a s k e d i f he -- he s a i d , i f I were t o search your v e h i c l e , would I f i n d anything i n t h e r e ? And [ M o o r e ] t o l d h i m no. A n d he s a i d , y o u t e l l me now, b e c a u s e i f I s e a r c h y o u r v e h i c l e a n d I f i n d s o m e t h i n g , t h e r e ' s g o i n g t o be a l o t more t r o u b l e t h a n i f y o u j u s t go a h e a d a n d t e l l me t h e t r u t h now. And we s a i d , no, t h e r e ' s n o t h i n g i n t h e v e h i c l e . " (R. 8.) in M e r e d i t h s a i d t h a t a f t e r Moore d e n i e d h a v i n g a n y t h i n g the vehicle, C p l . Wells searched i t and found crack cocaine. After both sides presented their evidence, the c i r c u i t c o u r t a s k e d C p l . W e l l s w h e t h e r he gave Moore a f i e l d - s o b r i e t y test, circuit t o which C p l . Wells replied that he d i d n o t . c o u r t then q u e s t i o n e d C p l . Wells i n d e t a i l why he d i d n o t g i v e Moore a f i e l d - s o b r i e t y t e s t . 4 The regarding Cpl. Wells CR-11-1079 explained because that before possession d i d not giving of c r a c k a p p e a r t o be the he circuit give the test, cocaine too impaired court granted Moore a and he saw a l s o saw field-sobriety that was in t h a t Moore d i d not t o d r i v e the v e h i c l e . Moore's m o t i o n t o Moore test Thereafter, suppress. On a p p e a l , t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a b u s e d its "the d i s c r e t i o n by g r a n t i n g M o o r e ' s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s b e c a u s e evidence testimony This Court was legally obtained at the s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g . " under any view of (State's b r i e f , at agrees. 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 parte Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 ( A l a . 1994); "[w]e i n d u l g e a presumption t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t 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 the 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]ny c o n f l i c t s i n the testimony or 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 trial 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) (citations omitted). However, " ' [ w ] h e r e t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e 5 the 5.) CR-11-1079 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 ] Court 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 novo, i n d u l g i n g no presumption i n 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 1 2 0 1 , 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 . 1 9 9 5 ) . 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 ) . ' " C.B.D. v. S t a t e , (quoting State 90 So. 3d 227, 237 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2011) v. H a r g e t t , C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ) . 935 So. 2d 1200, 1203-04 ( A l a . "'"'"A j u d g e a b u s e s h i s d i s c r e t i o n only when h i s d e c i s i o n i s b a s e d on an e r r o n e o u s c o n c l u s i o n o f l a w or where the record contains no evidence on which he r a t i o n a l l y c o u l d have b a s e d h i s d e c i s i o n . " ' " ' " B y r d v . S t a t e , 78 v. So. 3d 445, 450-51 State, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009) 926 So. 2d 1060, 1072 ( q u o t i n g Hodges ( A l a . Crim. App. 2005), q u o t i n g i n t u r n S t a t e v. J u d e , 686 So. 2d 528, 530 ( A l a . C r i m . App. So. v. 1996), q u o t i n g i n t u r n Dowdy v. G i l b e r t Eng'g Co., 372 2d 11, 12 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Premium S e r v . Sperry & Hutchinson, Co., 511 F.2d 225 ( 9 t h C i r . 6 Corp. 1975)). CR-11-1079 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 that 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, arrest; 5) p r o b a b l e 4) requirement searches; 3) hot p u r s u i t or cause c o u p l e d w i t h 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 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 exigent and search t o T e r r y v. O h i o , 392 U.S. 1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . 667 So. 2d 1339, 1343 the Ex ( A l a . 1995) . Another requirement i s the recognized exception "automobile e x c e p t i o n , " which a l l o w s law enforcement t o search an a u t o m o b i l e to and b a s e d on p r o b a b l e warrant cause a l o n e . S t a t e v. B l a c k , 987 So. 2d 1177, 1180 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006) ( c i t i n g v. Dyson, 527 U.S. In 465, 466-67 (1999)). S t a t e v. P e r r y , 66 So. 3d 291 ( A l a . C r i m . t h i s Court Maryland App. 2 0 1 0 ) , explained: "[A] t r a f f i c s t o p i s '"'more a n a l o g o u s ' t o t h e b r i e f i n v e s t i g a t i v e d e t e n t i o n a u t h o r i z e d i n T e r r y [ v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]"' than custody traditionally associated with a felony arrest. S i d e s v. S t a t e , 574 So. 2d 856, 858 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , q u o t i n g P i t t m a n v. S t a t e , 541 So. 2d 583, 585 7 CR-11-1079 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n B e r k e m e r v. M c C a r t y , 468 U.S. 420, 439, 104 S. C t . 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . In stopping a vehicle f o r a t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n , a p o l i c e o f f i c e r has, i n Fourth Amendment t e r m s , s e i z e d t h e d r i v e r , C a i n s v . S t a t e , 555 So. 2d 290, 292 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , q u o t i n g D e l a w a r e v. P r o u s e , 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S. C t . 1391, 59 L. E d . 2d 660 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . 'Under T e r r y [ v. O h i o , 392 U.S. 1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ] , l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s may s t o p a v e h i c l e f o r i n v e s t i g a t o r y p u r p o s e s b a s e d on a t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n . S t a t e v. R o d g e r s , 903 So. 2d 176, 178 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . ' J.T.C. v. S t a t e , 990 So. 2d 444, 447 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . " 66 So. 3d a t 294. seized "So l o n g as t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r h a s p r o p e r l y the occupants of the c a r , the o f f i c e r may o r d e r t h e d r i v e r , P e n n s y l v a n i a v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , o r a passenger, 2000) S t a t e v. H a i l s , (recognizing Maryland 814 So. 2d 980 v. W i l s o n , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 519 U.S. 408, 415 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 814 So. 2d 988 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , o u t o f t h e car w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g t h e F o u r t h Amendment." 49 So. 3d 1 2 4 5 , 1250 ( A l a . Crim. App. S t a t e v. B a i l e y , 2010); P e n n s y l v a n i a v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977) when l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t of see also (holding that o f f i c e r s have l e g a l l y s t o p p e d t h e d r i v e r a v e h i c l e , t h e y may, c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e F o u r t h Amendment, order a driver reason). After o u t o f t h e c a r f o r any r e a s o n o r f o r no t h e d r i v e r has been o r d e r e d o u t o f t h e c a r , " [ t ] h e o f f i c e r may s e i z e any c o n t r a b a n d , i n c l u d i n g weapons, i n 8 CR-11-1079 p l a i n view." Camp v. S t a t e , 983 So. 2d 1141, 1144 App. 2007) (quoting United States 1277 (11th C i r . 2001), c i t i n g U.S. 1032, 1049 v. P u r c e l l , (Ala. Crim. 236 F.3d 1274, i n t u r n M i c h i g a n v. L o n g , 463 (1983)). The Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s has e x p l a i n e d "if contraband i s left i n open view and i s observed that by a p o l i c e o f f i c e r f r o m a l a w f u l v a n t a g e p o i n t , t h e r e has been no invasion search of a l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n within t h e meaning of p r i v a c y of the Fourth and t h u s Amendment no or at l e a s t no s e a r c h i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e i n i t i a l i n t r u s i o n t h a t gave the officers 508 U.S. to their 366, 375 the search seizure of vantage p o i n t . " (1993). warrant evidence justification M i n n e s o t a v. Thus, " [ t ] h e p l a i n v i e w requirement i f the f o r the '"permits seizing [initial] officer intrusion, wrongdoing."'" v. O t w e l l , Crim. App. 1999) (quoting 682-83 ( A l a . Crim. State, 349 Otwell, 733 So. So. 2d 2d App. 103 at Smith 1984), v. 953 2d 950, State, 472 App. (recognizing 9 [and prior (2)] as e v i d e n c e o f So. quoting ( A l a . Crim. warrantless ... the object[] discovered 733 a exception (1) has immediately recognizes State Dickerson, 953 ( A l a . So. 2d 677, i n turn Herrin 1977)). See that there v. also i s no CR-11-1079 requirement under the plain-view doctrine that the o f f i c e r come upon t h e e v i d e n c e i n a d v e r t e n t l y ) . Here, there i s no s t o p p e d Moore f o r r u n n i n g dispute that C p l . Wells lawfully a stop sign. See P e r r y , 66 So. 3d a t 294 ( e x p l a i n i n g t h e l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s may stop lawfully the d r i v e r of a v e h i c l e f o r a t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n ) . Once Moore was l a w f u l l y s t o p p e d , C p l . W e l l s p r o p e r l y o r d e r e d h i m t o get out of the v e h i c l e . that the Fourth officers See Mimms, 434 U.S. a t 111 ( h o l d i n g Amendment does not require t o have a r e a s o n f o r o r d e r i n g a d r i v e r who h a s b e e n l a w f u l l y stopped t o get out of the v e h i c l e ) ; a t 294 (same). vehicle, law-enforcement P e r r y , 66 So. 3d A f t e r Moore opened t h e d o o r t o g e t o u t o f t h e C p l .Wells, who was l a w f u l l y i n a p o s i t i o n t o view t h e f l o o r b o a r d o f Moore's v e h i c l e , saw, i n p l a i n v i e w , what he recognized t o be Thereafter, a plastic he p r o p e r l y bag c o n t a i n i n g seized the crack crack cocaine cocaine. under t h e plain-view doctrine. As the obtained at State [the crack the suppression other words, correctly cocaine] argues, "legally u n d e r any v i e w o f t h e t e s t i m o n y hearing." "the record C p l . Wells (State's b r i e f , contains 10 a t 5.) In no e v i d e n c e on w h i c h [ t h e CR-11-1079 c i r c u i t c o u r t ] r a t i o n a l l y c o u l d have b a s e d g r a n t Moore's m o t i o n Consequently, to suppress. [its] d e c i s i o n , " to B y r d , 78 So. 3d a t 450-51. t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by d o i n g so. Accordingly, the the order of the c i r c u i t evidence reversed, further is and the cause court suppressing is remanded proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Welch, Kellum, Burke, and 11 Joiner, J J . , concur. for

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.