Mathew Daniel Grantham v. City of Tuscaloosa

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/02/2012 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-11-1093 Matthew D a n i e l Grantham v. C i t y o f Tuscaloosa Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t (CC-10-1064) Court BURKE, J u d g e . Matthew Daniel Grantham appeals h i s guilty c o n v i c t i o n o f second-degree u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n plea of marijuana, a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-12-214, A l a . Code 1975, a n d h i s r e s u l t i n g sentence o f 60 days i n j a i l , w h i c h s e n t e n c e was s u s p e n d e d . He CR-11-1093 was also ordered to pay a $250 fine, C o m p e n s a t i o n A s s e s s m e n t F u n d , and On February 27, 2010, $25 to the Victims a r r e s t e d and charged court costs. G r a n t h a m was w i t h s e c o n d - d e g r e e p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i j u a n a and p o s s e s s i o n o f drug paraphernalia. T h i s case was the Tuscaloosa M u n i c i p a l Court. o r i g i n a l l y prosecuted i n Grantham f i l e d a motion the Tuscaloosa M u n i c i p a l Court to suppress evidence, which subsequently denied. the f a c t s On May of the charges 20, 2010, was Grantham s t i p u l a t e d and p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o b o t h in to charges. Grantham a p p e a l e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r second-degree p o s s e s s i o n of m a r i j u a n a t o the T u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t On O c t o b e r the evidence evidence officers did not in 5, 2010, Grantham f i l e d resulting this from case, the alleging specific and a motion search that d i d n o t have p r o b a b l e c a u s e have Court. and the to suppress seizure of the law-enforcement f o r a s e a r c h ; that they articulable facts that were s u f f i c i e n t l y c o r r o b o r a t e d and n e c e s s a r y t o p e r f o r m a s t o p and frisk the under officers vehicle; Terry v. Ohio, performed an unlawful and that the 392 U.S. (1968); warrantless officers 2 1 conducted that search a of the custodial CR-11-1093 interrogation without first informing him o f h i s Miranda 1 rights. On F e b r u a r y 4, 2 0 1 1 , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h e l d a s u p p r e s s i o n hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, Grantham entered i n t o e v i d e n c e a v i d e o r e c o r d i n g o f t h e i n c i d e n t t h a t was t a k e n from t h e p o l i c e v e h i c l e d u r i n g t h e i n c i d e n t . Sgt. Billy Department driving Gene Hallman, testified on 3 5 t h J r . ,of that, Street At the hearing, the Tuscaloosa on F e b r u a r y Police 27, 2010, he a n d h i s a t t e n t i o n was drawn v e h i c l e i n w h i c h G r a n t h a m was r i d i n g . was to the When t h e v e h i c l e p a s s e d S g t . H a l l m a n ' s v e h i c l e , he n o t i c e d t h a t t h e p a s s e n g e r , who was later identified as Grantham, was n o t w e a r i n g a seat belt. S g t . H a l l m a n t h e n t u r n e d h i s v e h i c l e a r o u n d , c a u g h t up t o t h e vehicle, initiated h i s emergency vehicle. As he made t h e t r a f f i c make what he c o n s i d e r e d over the middle Sgt. Hallman console lights, stop, Hallman area with 1 his right d i d n o t see a n y t h i n g testified M i r a n d a v. A r i z o n a , he o b s e r v e d G r a n t h a m t o be a f u r t i v e movement b y r e a c h i n g d e t e r m i n e t o be a weapon o r a n y t h i n g Sgt. and stopped t h e that that could However, clearly e l s e i n Grantham's hand. Grantham's 348 U.S. 436 3 he arm. actions (1966). made him CR-11-1093 suspect that he might be Hallman then t r y i n g to approached the car, hide something. identified himself, r e t r i e v e d t h e d r i v e r ' s and t h e p a s s e n g e r ' s i n f o r m a t i o n . approached noticed the that jacket with used that enforcement," County of the and he d e s c r i b e d "reminded Sheriff's Office they changed." badges or insignia, (R. but capable of holding vehicle, Sgt. 10.) The [him] uniforms fraudulently t r y to identify Hallman on the "typically of that stop cars themselves as or the o l d they had any stated that left b e c a u s e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s d e a l w i t h p e o p l e who and As he d i d n o t have jacket Sgt. Hallman a badge as i t had front Sgt. Hallman s t a t e d t h a t the j a c k e t r a i s e d a l i t t l e enforcement and w e a r i n g a d a r k brown n y l o n - t y p e a furry collar, before place side t h e d r i v e r was i n law Tuscaloosa driver's Sgt. a chest. suspicion impersonate law approach people law enforcement. and Sgt. H a l l m a n q u e s t i o n e d t h e d r i v e r c o n c e r n i n g t h e j a c k e t and t h e n returned t o h i s v e h i c l e t o r u n a c o m p u t e r c h e c k on t h e d r i v e r and t h e p a s s e n g e r . At that location. history time, The -- a another police unit computer check r e v e a l e d responded to the t h a t t h e d r i v e r had a second-degree-possession-of-marijuana charge. 4 CR-11-1093 Sgt. Hallman approached the vehicle d r i v e r t o get out of the v e h i c l e , Sgt. Hallman again, and t h e d r i v e r c o o p e r a t e d . questioned the d r i v e r regarding charge and t e s t i f i e d that the d r i v e r and q u e s t i o n he answered every and a s k e d t h e the marijuana was c a l m , was cooperative, asked. During this q u e s t i o n i n g , G r a n t h a m was s t i l l i n t h e f r o n t p a s s e n g e r s e a t o f the v e h i c l e . The b a c k u p o f f i c e r , O f f i c e r H i n t o n , was w a t c h i n g Grantham i n t h e passenger s e a t . S g t . Hallman asked t h e d r i v e r about the jacket, and t h e d r i v e r responded belonged to h i s e x - g i r l f r i e n d ' s father. t h a t he l i k e d Sgt. Hallman his vehicle, After search still then asked the d r i v e r Officer consent t o H i n t o n asked Grantham, who was i n the f r o n t passenger seat, t o get out of the W h i l e O f f i c e r H i n t o n was t a l k i n g t o G r a n t h a m , S g t . initially Grantham r e f u s e d . rear replied f o r permission to search had s e c u r e d t h e d r i v e r ' s H a l l m a n was f i n i s h i n g p a t t i n g Hinton He f u r t h e r a n d t h e d r i v e r gave h i s c o n s e n t . the v e h i c l e , vehicle. the jacket t o wear t h e j a c k e t a n d t h a t i t k e p t h i m warm. Sgt. Hallman sitting that down t h e d r i v e r . When O f f i c e r asked Grantham t o g e t o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e , S g t . H a l l m a n t h e n began t o w a l k a r o u n d t h e of the c a r toward the passenger 5 side, and Grantham g o t CR-11-1093 out of the v e h i c l e . Sgt. H a l l m a n a s k e d h i m t o t u r n a r o u n d and p u t h i s hands on t h e trunk so safety. Sgt. A f t e r G r a n t h a m was o u t s i d e t h e v e h i c l e , that he could be p a t t e d down f o r the officer's G r a n t h a m was f a c i n g S g t . H a l l m a n and r e p e a t e d l y a s k e d Hallman physically why he had to t u r n e d Grantham do that. around, Sgt. Hallman p l a c e d h i s hands then on t h e t r u n k o f t h e c a r , and p a t t e d h i m down. While patting Grantham down, Sgt. Hallman felt a r e c t a n g u l a r s h a p e d o b j e c t i n G r a n t h a m ' s l e f t f r o n t p o c k e t . The o b j e c t had g r o o v e s on i t s s i d e and two i n d e n t i o n s on i t s t o p . Sgt. Hallman stated that, based on his e x p e r i e n c e , he t h o u g h t t h e o b j e c t f e l t l i k e training and a "dug o u t " t h a t was commonly u s e d t o s t o r e m a r i j u a n a and a s m o k i n g p i p e . 14.) Sgt. Hallman pocket and then confirmed m a r i j u a n a and a p i p e . removed t h e o b j e c t that i t was a "dug (R. from Grantham's out" containing G r a n t h a m t h e n a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e dug o u t was h i s . G r a n t h a m and t h e d r i v e r and Sgt. Hallman were t h e n p l a c e d i n h a n d c u f f s , searched the v e h i c l e . Sgt. Hallman s e a r c h e d t h e m i d d l e c o n s o l e a r e a where he h a d e a r l i e r Grantham r e a c h . first observed He f o u n d a d d i t i o n a l m a r i j u a n a and m a r i j u a n a 6 CR-11-1093 seeds i n the console. Sgt. Hallman stated that both the d r i v e r and G r a n t h a m were t h e n p l a c e d u n d e r a r r e s t . After case, S g t . Hallman's and t h e d e f e n s e circuit 2011, the S t a t e d i d not present c o u r t i s s u e d an o r d e r t o s u p p r e s s . The c i r c u i t rested i t s any w i t n e s s e s . c o u r t took the case under advisement. the c i r c u i t motion testimony, The On F e b r u a r y 25, denying court's order Grantham's stated: " [ G r a n t h a m ' s ] m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s was h e a r d on t h e r e c o r d on F e b r u a r y 4, 2011. The b r e v i t y o f t h i s o r d e r does n o t r e f l e c t t h e t i m e and attention d e v o t e d t o t h e m a t t e r . The j a c k e t and p r i o r a r r e s t r e c o r d were n o t s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n s t o d e t a i n t h e d r i v e r o r p a s s e n g e r . However, a f t e r r e v i e w i n g 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 and o t h e r f a c t o r s , I do n o t f i n d t h e s e i z u r e o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o be t h e r e s u l t of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i m p e r m i s s i b l e process. Therefore, the motion t o suppress i s d e n i e d . " (C. 30.) On degree April possession proceeding, appeal, 2, 2012, Grantham of marijuana. Grantham reserving gave the the r i g h t pleaded During trial to appeal d e n i a l of h i s motion t o suppress. guilty court his to second- guilty-plea oral n o t i c e of the c i r c u i t court's The C i t y o f T u s c a l o o s a also moved t o d i s m i s s t h e c h a r g e a g a i n s t Grantham f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f d r u g p a r a p h e r n a l i a and t h a t c h a r g e 13, 2012, Grantham f i l e d this was appeal. 7 dismissed. On April CR-11-1093 On a p p e a l , in denying Grantham a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t h i s motion to concedes t h a t t h e i n i t i a l sufficient probable suppress court because, erred although he t r a f f i c s t o p was l a w f u l a n d b a s e d on cause, u n j u s t i f i e d i n performing the o f f i c e r was constitutionally a patdown o f him because t h e o f f i c e r f a i l e d t o p o i n t t o any a r t i c u l a b l e , r e a s o n a b l e suspicion that he he was was i n v o l v e d i n criminal activity or that armed. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Grantham argues t h a t t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r not p o i n t t o any s p e c i f i c , articulable could suspicion of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y " o t h e r t h a n vague h u n c h e s i n r e g a r d t o t h e j a c k e t t h e driver was [Grantham]," wearing and, constitutionally contends that and thus, a slight the justified S g t . Hallman reaching arresting officer i n p a t t i n g h i m down. l a w f u l l y conducted Grantham b e c a u s e , b a s e d on t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e Sgt. Hallman could have movement formed a reasonable was The by not State a patdown o f circumstances, suspicion that Grantham was armed a n d d a n g e r o u s . In State v. Landrum, 2009), t h i s Court 18 So. 3d 424 (Ala. Crim. explained: "'This C o u r t r e v i e w s de novo a c i r c u i t court's d e c i s i o n on 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 when t h e facts are not i n dispute. See S t a t e v. H i l l , 690 So. 2d 1201, 1203 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; S t a t e v. O t w e l l , 733 8 App. CR-11-1093 So. 2d 950, 952 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . ' S t a t e v. S k a g g s , 903 So. 2d 180, 181 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . " State v. Landrum, presented only 18 So. 3d a t 426. at the suppression issue before correctly applied this the hearing Court law Because the i s not i n d i s p u t e , the i s whether the c i r c u i t to the facts presented s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , and we a f f o r d no p r e s u m p t i o n the c i r c u i t court's evidence court at i n favor of ruling. " A l l evidence o b t a i n e d by a search t h a t i s conducted i n v i o l a t i o n of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n i t e d S t a t e s i s i n a d m i s s i b l e i n a s t a t e c o u r t . Mapp v. O h i o , 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ; L o y d v. S t a t e , 279 A l a . 447, 186 So.2d 731 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . The F o u r t h Amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s bans a l l u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s . T e r r y v. O h i o , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed. 2d 889 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Whether a s e a r c h i s u n r e a s o n a b l e depends upon t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . S i b r o n v. New Y o r k , 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Warrantless s e a r c h e s a r e p e r se u n r e a s o n a b l e , u n l e s s t h e y f a l l w i t h i n a r e c o g n i z e d e x c e p t i o n . Ex p a r t e H i l l e y , 484 So. 2d 485 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . Those e x c e p t i o n s i n c l u d e : o b j e c t s i n p l a i n view, consensual searches, a search incident to a lawful arrest, hot p u r s u i t or emergency s i t u a t i o n s , p r o b a b l e cause c o u p l e d w i t h e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and a T e r r y [v. O h i o , 392 U.S. 1 (1968),] 'stop and f r i s k ' situation. D a n i e l s v. S t a t e , 290 A l a . 316, 276 So. 2d 441 (1973). Where a s e a r c h i s executed without a w a r r a n t , t h e b u r d e n f a l l s upon t h e S t a t e t o show t h a t t h e s e a r c h f a l l s w i t h i n an e x c e p t i o n . K i n a r d v. S t a t e , 335 So. 2d 924 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) . " Ex p a r t e T u c k e r , 667 So. 2d 1339, 1343 9 the ( A l a . 1995). CR-11-1093 "'Under L.Ed.2d Terry 889 (1968), investigatory "reasonable v. O h i o , stops 392 U.S. law enforcement of persons So. 88 S . C t . 1868, 20 officers may or v e h i c l e s i f they conduct have a s u s p i c i o n t h a t c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y has o c c u r r e d , i s o c c u r r i n g , o r i s about t o o c c u r . " ' " 468, 1, S t a t e v. D a v i s , 7 So. 3d 470 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , q u o t i n g W i l s h e r v. S t a t e , 611 2d 1175, 1179 (Ala. Crim. o m i t t e d ) . When an o f f i c e r App. 1 9 9 2 ) ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s stops a suspect pursuant to Terry, the o f f i c e r " ' " ' i s e n t i t l e d f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f h i m s e l f and others i n the area t o conduct a c a r e f u l l y the o u t e r c l o t h i n g o f such persons limited i n an a t t e m p t search of to discover weapons w h i c h m i g h t be u s e d t o a s s a u l t h i m . ' [ T e r r y , ] 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S . C t . 1868."'" S m i t h v. S t a t e , 884 So. 2d 3, 9 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g R i d d l e s p r i g g e r v. S t a t e , 803 So. 2d 579, 582 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . " T h i s C o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a t r a f f i c s t o p i s '"'more a n a l o g o u s ' to the b r i e f investigative detention authorized i n Terry"' than custody t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with a felony a r r e s t . Sides 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 ( A l a . C r i m . 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 . E d . 2d 317 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . I n s t o p p i n g 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 , a p o l i c e o f f i c e r h a s , i n F o u r t h 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. 10 CR-11-1093 P r o u s e , 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S . C t . 1 3 9 1 , 59 L . E d . 2d 660 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , as w e l l as any p a s s e n g e r , B r e n d l i n v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 127 S . C t . 2400, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , so l o n g as t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r has p r o p e r l y s e i z e d t h e occupants o f the c a r , the o f f i c e r may order the driver, P e n n s y l v a n i a v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 1 1 1 , 98 S . C t . 330, 54 L . E d . 2d 331 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , o r a p a s s e n g e r , S t a t e v. H a i l s , 814 So.2d 980 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 814 So.2d 988 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , recognizing M a r y l a n d v. W i l s o n , 519 U.S. 408, 4 1 5 , 117 S . C t . 882, 137 L . E d . 2d 41 ( 1 9 9 7 ) , o u t o f t h e c a r 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. See, S t a t e v. A b n e r , 889 So. 2d 52, 53-54 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f Mimms a n d W i l s o n i n Alabama). "When a p o l i c e o f f i c e r p r o p e r l y s e i z e s 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 , t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r may n o t o n l y o r d e r t h e d r i v e r o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e , b u t may a l s o p a t down t h e d r i v e r f o r weapons i f t h e o f f i c e r r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e d r i v e r i s armed a n d d a n g e r o u s . Mimms, 434 U.S. a t 112, 98 S . C t . 330. R e c e n t l y , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t e x p a n d e d t h e T e r r y t r a f f i c s t o p j u r i s p r u d e n c e i n A r i z o n a v. J o h n s o n , 555 U.S. 323, 129 S . C t . 7 8 1 , 172 L . E d . 2d 694 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , h o l d i n g t h a t , as w i t h a d r i v e r s u s p e c t e d o f c a r r y i n g a weapon, a p o l i c e o f f i c e r may a l s o o r d e r a p a s s e n g e r o u t o f a v e h i c l e and conduct a patdown o f a p a s s e n g e r i f t h e o f f i c e r r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e p a s s e n g e r i s armed a n d d a n g e r o u s . The Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d : "'[I]n a t r a f f i c - s t o p setting, the f i r s t Terry c o n d i t i o n a lawful investigatory s t o p i s met w h e n e v e r i t i s l a w f u l f o r police to detain an a u t o m o b i l e a n d i t s occupants pending i n q u i r y i n t o a v e h i c u l a r v i o l a t i o n . The p o l i c e n e e d n o t h a v e , i n a d d i t i o n , cause t o b e l i e v e any occupant o f the vehicle i s involved i n criminal activity. To j u s t i f y a p a t d o w n o f t h e 11 CR-11-1093 d r i v e r or a passenger during a t r a f f i c s t o p , h o w e v e r , j u s t as i n t h e c a s e o f a p e d e s t r i a n r e a s o n a b l y suspected of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y , t h e p o l i c e must h a r b o r r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t h a t the person s u b j e c t e d to the f r i s k i s armed and d a n g e r o u s . ' "555 B.A.H. U.S. v. a t 327, State, 28 129 S.Ct So. at 3d 784." 29, 32 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 9 ) ( i n t e r n a l emphasis o m i t t e d ) . I n S t a t e v. H a i l s , 2000), t h i s Court 814 So. s t a t e d the 2d 980, 986 (Ala. Crim. following: " ' P o l i c e may conduct a pat-down s e a r c h w i t h o u t a warrant i f , under the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances, the officer has an a r t i c u l a b l e , reasonable s u s p i c i o n that a p e r s o n i s i n v o l v e d i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y and t h a t he i s armed. T e r r y v. O h i o , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The reasonableness of the search is measured objectively. If a reasonably prudent person would b e l i e v e t h a t h i s safety, or the s a f e t y of others, i s e n d a n g e r e d , he may c o n d u c t a l i m i t e d s e a r c h o f o u t e r c l o t h i n g t o d i s c o v e r any weapons. I d . a t 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868.' " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Raymond, 152 F.3d 309, 312 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) . 'And i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e o f f i c e r a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y i n s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s , due w e i g h t must be given ... to the specific reasonable i n f e r e n c e w h i c h he i s e n t i t l e d t o draw f r o m t h e f a c t s i n l i g h t o f h i s e x p e r i e n c e . ' T e r r y v. O h i o , 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)." S t a t e v. H a i l s , 814 So. 2d a t 986. 12 App. CR-11-1093 "'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 probable cause,' C t . 2412, 2416, the A l a b a m a v. W h i t e , 496 110 L.Ed. detaining officers basis for 611 justify So. the the person S t a t e , 500 A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 500 State, 2d (1990), So. 2d 1175, 1179 1280, suspicion response] specific or of criminal ( A l a . Crim. W i l s h e r v. App. 1992) . "To patdown and search, the 'to h i s i n c h o a t e "hunch," reasonable S. objective ( A l a . 1986)." o f f i c e r ' s a c t i o n s must n o t be i n r e s p o n s e unparticularized 110 and 1281 ( A l a . Crim. stop 330, requiring only that detained So. 2d 1282 investigatory to the 325, 'have a p a r t i c u l a r i z e d suspecting a c t i v i t y , ' Webb v. 2d 301 U.S. than but [must be i n f e r e n c e s w h i c h he and in is e n t i t l e d t o draw f r o m t h e f a c t s i n l i g h t o f h i s e x p e r i e n c e . ' " Ex parte Terry, 392 reasonably officer's James, U.S. 797 at prudent So. 26) person experience and 2d 413, 415 (emphasis ( A l a . 2000) omitted). Thus, [ i n the officer's shoes w i t h training] would believe s a f e t y , or the s a f e t y of o t h e r s , i s endangered, may (quoting "[i]f a that 2010)(citations and quotations 13 508 omitted). his [the o f f i c e r ] conduct a l i m i t e d search of outer c l o t h i n g to d i s c o v e r weapons." S t a t e v. T a y l o r , 46 So. 3d 504, the ( A l a . Crim. "'This any App. process CR-11-1093 allows officers specialized to training draw on their own experience t o make i n f e r e n c e s f r o m and d e d u c t i o n s a b o u t t h e c u m u l a t i v e 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 w e l l e l u d e an u n t r a i n e d p e r s o n . " ' 534 U.S. "might [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v.] A r v i z u , [ 266] a t 273, 122 S . C t . 744 ( 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. State, and [411] a t 418, 101 S . C t . 6 9 0 ) . " Muse v. 42 So. 3d 789, 792 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . Here, Sgt. Hallman d i d not a r t i c u l a t e facts that would s u p p o r t a r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t h a t G r a n t h a m was i n v o l v e d i n criminal that activity o r t h a t he was armed. he saw G r a n t h a m reach over Other the middle than console stating of the v e h i c l e , S g t . H a l l m a n f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e any d e t a i l s t h a t would l e a d a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n t o s u s p e c t t h a t G r a n t h a m was i n v o l v e d in criminal activity. "Furtive gestures may be t a k e n into account i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether p r o b a b l e cause e x i s t s . " W a l t e r s v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 206, 209 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . Alabama 1339 Supreme Court ( A l a . 1995), noted i n Ex p a r t e T u c k e r , 667 So. 2d a f u r t i v e movement, when n o t a f l i g h t , " i s t y p i c a l l y some s t e a l t h y a c t t o c o n c e a l an o b j e c t f r o m view by t h e p o l i c e As t h e initial o r by s t r a n g e r s or t o q u i c k l y d i s p o s e o f 14 CR-11-1093 t h e o b j e c t . " 667 So. 2d a t 1347-48. The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g r e g a r d i n g such furtive movements: " ' [ D ] e l i b e r a t e l y f u r t i v e a c t i o n s and f l i g h t at the approach of strangers or law o f f i c e r s a r e s t r o n g i n d i c i a o f mens r e a , and when c o u p l e d w i t h s p e c i f i c k n o w l e d g e on the p a r t of the o f f i c e r r e l a t i n g the suspect t o the evidence of c r i m e , they are p r o p e r f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n t o make an a r r e s t . ' " S i b r o n [ v . New Y o r k ] , 392 U.S. [40,] 66-67, 88 S.Ct. [1889,] 1904 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . P r o f e s s o r L a F a v e h a s commented upon t h i s l a n g u a g e as f o l l o w s : "'Thus, i f t h e p o l i c e s e e a p e r s o n i n possession of a h i g h l y suspicious object or some o b j e c t w h i c h i s n o t i d e n t i f i a b l e b u t which because of other circumstances i s r e a s o n a b l y s u s p e c t e d t o be c o n t r a b a n d , a n d t h e n o b s e r v e t h a t p e r s o n make an a p p a r e n t attempt t o c o n c e a l t h a t o b j e c t from p o l i c e view, p r o b a b l e cause i s then p r e s e n t . ' "W. ed. 667 LaFave, 2 Search 1987)." So. 2d a t 1347. However, suspect The a n d S e i z u r e § 3.6(d) a t 58 (2d i n this case, criminal behavior there other s t o p was made i n t h e m i d d l e indication was than no p r i o r reason to a seat-belt violation. o f t h e d a y , a n d t h e r e was no t h a t t h e s t o p was made i n an a r e a t h a t was o f t e n p a t r o l l e d b e c a u s e o f h i g h c r i m e r a t e s . T h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d o f any a c t i v i t y b y t h e v e h i c l e o r i t s p a s s e n g e r s 15 CR-11-1093 t h a t w o u l d have s u g g e s t e d i n v o l v e m e n t i n c r i m i n a l Sgt. Hallman stated that any "suspicious t h a t t h e y m i g h t be t r y i n g t o h i d e during the i n i t i a l d i d not i n d i c a t e console, a n d he Grantham's h a n d . stated traffic knife him something or - that that he he saw i n the car. or other d i d not belligerent. furtive (R. 9 ) . Grantham Sgt. open the d i d n o t see a n y t h i n g in When he a p p r o a c h e d t h e c a r , S g t . H a l l m a n d i d sheaths marijuana Hallman in made movement stop." n o t o b s e r v e any weapons, s h e l l c a s i n g s , or object s u r e what was g o i n g on. B u t he d i d make a movement Hallman Grantham's see hand quite that d i d not Grantham's not but he activity. illegal He firearm cases, knives, d i d not smell o r see substance. indicate that A l t h o u g h Grantham A d d i t i o n a l l y , Sgt. Grantham initially was nervous or indicated that he w o u l d n o t w i l l i n g l y g e t o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e , he d i d n o t become aggressive a n d he s u b s e q u e n t l y v o l u n t a r i l y g o t o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e s h o r t l y a f t e r he was o r d e r e d t o do s o . L i k e w i s e , Grantham consent first questioned t o a patdown, became a g g r e s s i v e why there Sgt. Hallman was no t e s t i m o n y was that when requesting Grantham o r b e l l i g e r e n t ; r a t h e r , i t appears from S g t . 16 CR-11-1093 Hallman's testimony that G r a n t h a m was r i g h t t o p r i v a c y by w i t h h o l d i n g The S t a t e Sgt. Hallman jacket, h i s consent. stated resembled to Sgt. a law-enforcement Hallman's d r i v e r and G r a n t h a m were e n g a g e d However, S g t . H a l l m a n any b a d g e s o r i n s i g n i a ; the driver or passenger a suspicion police officer; driver about h i s j a c k e t , questions. and that that, suspicion testified contain the officer's that the i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y o r were not warrant asserting his f u r t h e r argues t h a t the d r i v e r ' s j a c k e t , which contributed armed. merely that the j a c k e t d i d t h a t he d i d n o t w i t n e s s taking any t h e y were t r y i n g action would to impersonate when S g t . H a l l m a n the d r i v e r calmly that a q u e s t i o n e d the responded t o h i s The d r i v e r ' s v e h i c l e d i d n o t have any m a r k i n g s o r l i g h t s on i t t h a t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s u s p e c t s were i n v o l v e d i n the criminal activity Without about more, the "inchoate we jacket and of pretending cannot say that t h e d r i v e r was the t h a t would justify law officer's or 17 suspicions than 'hunch,'" an and, the o f f i c e r w i t h a reasonable a patdown under p a r t e James, 797 So. 2d a t 415. enforcement. w e a r i n g were more unparticularized suspicion thus, those f a c t s cannot provide suspicion t o be Terry. See Ex Thus, l o o k i n g a t t h e t o t a l i t y CR-11-1093 of the circumstances, we cannot say t h a t Sgt. H a l l m a n 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 G r a n t h a m o f being is i n v o l v e d i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y or of b e i n g required Hails, to 814 justify So. 2d at a patdown under 986. armed, w h i c h Terry. Accordingly, See we State find that c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g Grantham's m o t i o n t o Although consented to the a d i s s e n t argues search of the t h a t , because car, the ever raise Spears, p a t d o w n and this 560 So. s e i z u r e was issue--at t r i a l 2d 1145, f o r the proper, or 1152 the suppress. the driver's the i n e v i t a b l e - d i s c o v e r y r u l e w o u l d have b e e n a v i a b l e o p t i o n that v. on State the argue State did not See State v. appeal. (Ala. Crim. to App. showing t h a t the i n e v i t a b l e d i s c o v e r y e x c e p t i o n 1989) should ("In apply, t h e S t a t e must c a r r y t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of the evidence t h a t the i n i t i a l therefrom was c o n s e n t , see (C.D.Cal. not used United 1987), i n any S t a t e s v. way and that the the illegal during inevitably have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d search. In to Friewald, discovered consent search or i n f o r m a t i o n addition, 18 gain 661 evidence search by the the the gained defendant's F.Supp. 559, and would information ultimately l a w f u l means o f State must 562 prove or the the CR-11-1093 voluntariness 412 U.S. of the 218, 93 S.Ct. S t a t e s v. Watson , 423 (1976)."). For c o n s e n t . See 2041, U.S. 36 411, S c h n e c k l o t h v. L.Ed.2d 854 96 S.Ct. i n the r e c o r d to support t h i s theory to engage impossible in a speculative to glean from the not 46 L.Ed. i s s u e and t o be 2d 598 facts would r e q u i r e t h i s Court expedition. It r e c o r d w h e t h e r G r a n t h a m , as for a possible a fact-finding is the constructive c h a r g e o r c o u l d have b e e n r e l e a s e d . intended United find fact-finding p a s s e n g e r , w o u l d have b e e n h e l d possession (1973); 820, t h i s Court to reach t h i s Bustamonte, This Court i s body; t h a t d u t y i s l e f t to t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r t h e j u r y , d e p e n d i n g on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a s e . See 2012] So. concurring this theory a neutral role e.g. F l o y d v. S t a t e , 3d , (Ala. i n the r e s u l t ) . Therefore, 1080107, September 28, 2012), J., (Murdock, t o c o n t r i v e or would r e q u i r e t h i s Court to abdicate arbiter of to manipulating B a s e d on circuit [Ms. court the is the law the stated reversed, proceedings consistent with REVERSED AND and this REMANDED. 19 could instead i t s duty as facts. reasons and conceive above, the this cause opinion. relegate i t s judgment of the is for remanded CR-11-1093 Welch, Kellum, dissents, with and Joiner, opinion. 20 J J . , concur. Windom, P.J., CR-11-1093 WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I disagree with the majority's determination that B i l l y Gene H a l l m a n , J r . , d i d n o t p o s s e s s r e a s o n a b l e sufficient However, to j u s t i f y even determination, i f I Sgt. suspicion a patdown o f Matthew D a n i e l Grantham. were to agree with the majority's I would s t i l l a f f i r m the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f Grantham's m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s because o f the discovery exception to the e x c l u s i o n a r y inevitable- rule. "'Under [the inevitable-discovery] exception, a c o u r t may admit illegally obtained evidence i f the evidence inevitably would have been discovered through independent, l a w f u l means. For e x a m p l e , i n N i x v. W i l l i a m s , [467 U.S. 431 (1984),] the Supreme Court held that evidence concerning the location and c o n d i t i o n o f a m u r d e r v i c t i m ' s body was a d m i s s i b l e even though the p o l i c e o b t a i n e d this information in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Court reasoned that a c o m p r e h e n s i v e s e a r c h a l r e a d y u n d e r way a t the time of the p o l i c e i l l e g a l i t y would have i n e v i t a b l y r e s u l t e d i n t h e d i s c o v e r y o f the body.' " M i l e s C l a r k , P r o j e c t , T h i r t y - f i r s t Annual Review of C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e , The E x c l u s i o n a r y R u l e , 90 Geo. L . J . 1264, 1274-76 (2002) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . See, e.g., M u r r a y v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 487 U.S. 533, 539, 108 S. C t . 2529, 101 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1988) ( n o t i n g that inevitable discovery is actually an e x t r a p o l a t i o n from the independent-source d o c t r i n e : b e c a u s e t h e t a i n t e d e v i d e n c e w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e i f S . 21 CR-11-1093 i n f a c t i t was d i s c o v e r e d t h r o u g h an i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e , i t s h o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e i f i t i n e v i t a b l y w o u l d have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d ) . "... Under t h e i n e v i t a b l e - d i s c o v e r y e x c e p t i o n , t h e p r o s e c u t o r h a s t h e b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g (1) that there i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that the e v i d e n c e i n q u e s t i o n w o u l d have been d i s c o v e r e d b y l a w f u l means b u t f o r t h e p o l i c e m i s c o n d u c t ; (2) t h a t the l e a d s making t h e d i s c o v e r y i n e v i t a b l e were possessed by t h e p o l i c e a t t h e time of the m i s c o n d u c t ; a n d (3) t h a t t h e p o l i c e , b e f o r e t h e m i s c o n d u c t , were a c t i v e l y p u r s u i n g t h e a l t e r n a t i v e l i n e o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C h e r r y , 759 F.2d 1196 (5th C i r . 1985); United States v. B r o o k i n s , 614 F.2d 1037, 1043 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) . " Kabat v. S t a t e , 2003) (footnote 867 So. 2d 1153, 1156-57 ( A l a . Crim. App. omitted). As t h e m a j o r i t y n o t e d , the d r i v e r of the v e h i c l e i n which G r a n t h a m was a p a s s e n g e r gave S g t . H a l l m a n c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h his vehicle. So. 3d a t . A t t h e t i m e t h e c o n s e n t was g i v e n , G r a n t h a m h a d n o t y e t been s u b j e c t e d t o t h e p a t d o w n , b u t r a t h e r was s i t t i n g i n t h e f r o n t p a s s e n g e r s e a t o f t h e v e h i c l e . After S g t . H a l l m a n was g r a n t e d Officer Hinton asked Grantham consent t o conduct a t o get out of the v e h i c l e . Grantham i n i t i a l l y r e f u s e d , b u t a c q u i e s c e d t o O f f i c e r command a f t e r S g t . H a l l m a n b e g a n w a l k i n g A patdown search of Grantham was Hinton's t o w a r d Grantham. conducted H a l l m a n , d u r i n g w h i c h t h e "dug o u t " was d i s c o v e r e d . 22 search, by S g t . Grantham CR-11-1093 was p l a c e d i n h a n d c u f f s , and Sgt. Hallman p r o c e e d e d w i t h t h e search of consented. the vehicle t o which Sgt. Hallman the d r i v e r searched the middle had earlier console area, w h i c h i s t h e a r e a t o w a r d w h i c h G r a n t h a m made what S g t . H a l l m a n considered t o be a f u r t i v e movement. There, Sgt. Hallman d i s c o v e r e d m a r i j u a n a and m a r i j u a n a seeds. Regardless o f t h e s e a r c h o f Grantham, t h e d i s c o v e r y o f m a r i j u a n a and seeds i n t h e v e h i c l e , which Grantham furtive made movement, what would e s p e c i a l l y i n an a r e a t o S g t . Hallman have provided considered t o be a Sgt. Hallman with s u f f i c i e n t p r o b a b l e cause t o a r r e s t Grantham f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f marijuana. Grantham, yielded search 644 Once S g t . H a l l m a n had p r o b a b l e cause to arrest a s e a r c h o f Grantham's p o c k e t s , w h i c h would t h e dug o u t , w o u l d incident to a lawful have b e e n p r o p e r p u r s u a n t t o a arrest. See C a l l a h a n v. S t a t e , So. 2d 1329, 1332 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994) ( h o l d i n g d e p u t y was j u s t i f i e d have i n searching p r o b a b l e cause t o a r r e s t had been appellant's pockets that once established). B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , t h e t h r e e - p r o n g e d t e s t f o u n d i n K a b a t was s a t i s f i e d . B e f o r e t h e patdown s e a r c h o f Grantham, S g t . H a l l m a n h a d o b s e r v e d G r a n t h a m make a f u r t i v e 23 CR-11-1093 movement i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e m i d d l e and had obtained vehicle. consent Additionally, from console of the v e h i c l e the d r i v e r to search S g t . H a l l m a n d i d n o t a c q u i r e a n y new information relevant to the discovery of the marijuana middle console patdown probability have d u r i n g t h e patdown s e a r c h . search been were that illegal, the marijuana discovered the by there Thus, e v e n i f t h e was a i n the middle lawful i n the reasonable would but f o r the means console police m i s c o n d u c t and t h a t t h e l e a d s making i n e v i t a b l e t h e d i s c o v e r y of marijuana the time i n t h e c o n s o l e were p o s s e s s e d of misconduct, the was misconduct; actively Sgt. pursuing by S g t . Hallman a t Hallman, before the a l t e r n a t i v e the line of out" discovered in investigation. Because Grantham's I believe pocket that the i s subject to "dug the i n e v i t a b l e - d i s c o v e r y exception to the exclusionary rule, I believe that the c i r c u i t court's d e n i a l o f Grantham's affirmed. Indeed, suppression evidence discovery hearing, should the City n o r does n o t be exception. motion d i d not i t argue suppressed However, 24 t o suppress this argue should during on a p p e a l , under Court the may be the that the inevitableaffirm the CR-11-1093 judgment of regardless the of circuit whether court that on ground circuit court. Liberty Nat'l Life Alabama Health Servs. (Ala. 2003) 2000), c i t i n g (citing Found., Ex p a r t e was S.E.2d 316, 330-31 (2010). legal considered ground, by the I n s . Co. v. U n i v e r s i t y o f 881 So. 2d 1013, Ryals, 773 So. 2d 1011 ( A l a . i n t u r n Ex p a r t e W i g i n t o n , see a l s o Humphreys valid P.C., 1 9 9 9 ) , and S m i t h v. E q u i f a x S e r v s . , 1988)); any 1020 743 So.2d 1071 ( A l a . I n c . , 537 So.2d 463 ( A l a . v. S t a t e , 287 Ga. 63, 76-77, 694 Therefore, I r e s p e c t f u l l y dissent. 25

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.