State of Alabama v. George Willie Pollard, alias
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL:
08/30/2013
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-10-1560
S t a t e o f Alabama
v.
George W i l l i e
Pollard
Appeal from Lee C i r c u i t
(CC-11-418)
Court
On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g
JOINER,
Judge.
This Court's
and
o p i n i o n o f December 14, 2012, i s w i t h d r a w n ,
the following i s substituted therefor.
CR-10-1560
George
Willie
Pollard
was
charged
f i r s t - d e g r e e u n l a w f u l manufacture
see § 13A-12-218, A l a . Code
On
June
suppress
1,
2011,
Specifically,
the " [ o ] f f i c e r s
stop
and
of a c o n t r o l l e d
filed
a
pretrial
s e i z e d as a r e s u l t
Pollard
stated
and
taken
him,"
the
arrest
i n h i s motion
and
of
Pollard
statements
are
due
leading
the
d i s c o v e r y of
the
established
to
be
suppression
the
i n the
[Pollard]
argued
and
that
suppressed
Check
Cargill
p.m.,
Alert"
pseudoephedrine
hearing,
at
On
a
purchase
statements
the "evidence
i n that
the
and
[ t h e ] search
and
statements
24.)
undisputed
January
a
12,
evidence
2011,
at
Corporal Brantley C a r g i l l received a
indicating
explained that
someone w o u l d
that
d i s c o v e r y of
the
[ t h e ] evidence
following:
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3:18
"Meth
to
stop.
to suppress
[was] conducted without a search warrant." (C.
At
motion
of the O p e l i k a P o l i c e Department conducted
contraband
to
substance,
of a t r a f f i c
search of [ P o l l a r d ] r e s u l t i n g
from
indictment with
1975.
Pollard
the evidence
by
Wal-Mart
he
would
that
Pollard
had
discount
store
receive
these
pseudoephedrine
that
purchased
i n Opelika.
alerts
[ h e ] had
"when
on
w a t c h l i s t [ ; ] i t w o u l d a l e r t [ h i m ] v i a e - m a i l someone t h a t
2
a
had
CR-10-1560
purchased
and
purchased."
where t h e y
(R.
81.)
purchased
Cargill
and
further
i n d i v i d u a l i s p l a c e d on t h e w a t c h l i s t
the
individual
Pollard
into
i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h him
"had
many grams
explained
the
81.) A c c o r d i n g
watch
list
i n September 2010;
then
and
contacted
investigator
with
R o g e r s t h a t he
P o l l a r d had
had
the
Michael
Opelika
r e c e i v e d an
of
specifically,
and
87.)
Rogers,
a
1
prior
Pollard
he
is a
narcotics
Police
Department,
and
told
e-mail
alert
indicating
that
discount
A f t e r Rogers r e c e i v e d the i n f o r m a t i o n from
C a r g i l l , R o g e r s d r o v e t o t h e a r e a o f I n t e r s t a t e 85 and e x i t
in
Opelika.
R o g e r s t h e n p o s i t i o n e d h i s v e h i c l e "on
o f t h e roadway f a c i n g n o r t h b o u n d a t e x i t 64
to
observe
any
he
Cargill
purchased pseudoephedrine at a Wal-Mart
store i n Opelika.
an
"excessive
because
p o s s i b l y a meth c o o k . " ( R .
Detective
that
to C a r g i l l ,
p r e v i o u s l y been a r r e s t e d f o r the p r e c u r s o r ,
known meth u s e r
they
i f C a r g i l l knows t h a t
u s e s methamphetamine o r p u r c h a s e s
amounts o f p s e u d o p h e d r i n e . " ( R .
entered
how
vehicles
traveling
north.
...
i n an
And
the
64
edge
attempt
[ h i s ] main
R o g e r s t e s t i f i e d on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e e - m a i l s
a r e g e n e r a t e d as a p a r t o f a p r o g r a m c a l l e d t h e N a t i o n a l
P r e c u r s o r Law E n f o r c e m e n t E x c h a n g e P r o g r a m ("NPLEX"), w h i c h ,
he s a i d , i s a " d a t a b a s e
maintained
by t h e S t a t e
of
A l a b a m a . " (R. 53.)
1
3
CR-10-1560
purpose
... was
to observe
the v e h i c l e
that
[Pollard]
was
occup[ying]."
While
which,
Rogers
was
waiting,
a black
said,
was
occupied
by
he
redheaded female."
Pollard's
wife,
vehicle
"two
black
p a s s e d him,
males
and
a
R o g e r s was f a m i l i a r w i t h b o t h P o l l a r d a n d
Christy.
Rogers
knew
that
Christy
had r e d
h a i r so he d e c i d e d t o f o l l o w t h e v e h i c l e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r
Christy
was
determine
t h e "redheaded
whether
Rogers p u l l e d
Pollard
up n e x t
f r o n t passenger seat.
female"
was
also
i n the v e h i c l e
i n the v e h i c l e .
to the v e h i c l e
he saw P o l l a r d i n t h e
l i c e n s e t a g number, a n d d e t e r m i n e d
t h a t i t was r e g i s t e r e d t o S t e v e Madden.
[Madden]
had
an
outstanding
property.
A f t e r Rogers l e a r n e d
warrant,
Rogers
initiated a traffic
When
Rogers then " f e l l back i n b e h i n d " the
v e h i c l e , ran the v e h i c l e ' s
that
and t o
activated
R o g e r s "was
warrant"
informed
for theft
of
t h a t Madden h a d an o u t s t a n d i n g
his
emergency
s t o p on t h e v e h i c l e .
equipment
and
According t o Rogers,
he c o n d u c t e d t h e t r a f f i c s t o p b a s e d on t h e o u t s t a n d i n g w a r r a n t
for
Madden c o u p l e d w i t h
the information
had
r e c e n t l y purchased pseudoephedrine.
4
he h a d t h a t
Pollard
CR-10-1560
When t h e v e h i c l e
driver--Madden--and
stopped,
asked
R o g e r s made c o n t a c t w i t h t h e
him t o step
R o g e r s t h e n a s k e d Madden f o r c o n s e n t
out o f the v e h i c l e .
to search the v e h i c l e .
Madden gave R o g e r s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h t h e v e h i c l e , and, d u r i n g
t h e s e a r c h , R o g e r s d i s c o v e r e d "a g a l l o n
fuel,"
"a b o x o f A l e v e - D
hundred
percent
cold p i l l s , "
household
floorboard--items
methamphetamine.
Rogers
rights,
and
Pollard
rights,
signed
a
cleaner"
used
then
in
read
acknowledged
waiver
a n d two b o t t l e s o f "one
drain
commonly
of
c a n o f Coleman camp
the
he
rights,
the
rear
manufacture
Pollard
that
those
on
his
Miranda
understood
and
of
2
his
provided
a
statement.
Although P o l l a r d argued i n h i s w r i t t e n motion t o suppress
t h a t t h e " e v i d e n c e a n d s t a t e m e n t s a r e due t o be s u p p r e s s e d i n
that
[the] search l e a d i n g t o the d i s c o v e r y of [the] evidence
and s t a t e m e n t s
24),
the c i r c u i t
[was] c o n d u c t e d w i t h o u t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t " (C.
court, at the suppression hearing during the
testimony of D e t e c t i v e Rogers,
framed
t h e i s s u e b e f o r e i t as
follows:
2
Miranda
v. A r i z o n a , 384 U.S.
5
436
(1966).
CR-10-1560
" W e l l , y o u know, t h e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r o r n o t
t h i s e - m a i l i s enough t o b a s e a s t o p o n , a n d I want
t o f i n d o u t w h e t h e r i t was v e r i f i e d o r n o t . "
(R. 71.)
At the close of a l l the evidence,
the c i r c u i t
court
stated:
"It
a p p e a r s i t may be a m a t t e r
of f i r s t
i m p r e s s i o n . We w i l l have Mr. Madden h e r e t o m o r r o w .
But
that's really
not the primary
i s s u e I am
c o n c e r n e d w i t h . I t seems t o me t h e - - t h e i s s u e b e f o r e
t h e C o u r t i s w h e t h e r o r n o t y o u have a r i g h t o f
t e m p o r a r y d e t e n t i o n , a n d - - a n d t h i s i s b a s e d on a-- a
n o t i f i c a t i o n f r o m some t y p e o f c o m p u t e r s o f t w a r e . I t
says:
" ' A l l r e p o r t s s h o u l d be c o n f i r m e d
reported pharmacist.'
with
"So--you know, I have n e v e r h a d a s i t u a t i o n
where I have known o f a s t o p b a s e d on a c o m p u t e r
software generated e-mail."
(R.
95-96.)
anonymous
After
analogizing
t i p , the c i r c u i t
court
the e-mail
ordered
alert
the p a r t i e s t o
r e s e a r c h t h e i s s u e and r e t u r n t h e f o l l o w i n g morning.
p a r t i e s r e t u r n e d , t h e f o l l o w i n g exchange
t o an
When t h e
occurred:
"THE
COURT: Okay. When we l e f t
yesterday,
t a l k i n g a b o u t [Ex p a r t e A a r o n , 913 So. 2 d 1110 ( A l a .
2 0 0 5 ) ] , a n d - - s o d i d anybody f i n d any r e s e a r c h o v e r
the evening?
" [ P o l l a r d ' s c o u n s e l ] : Y o u r H o n o r , I was u n a b l e
to f i n d a s i n g l e case i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t h a t
d e a l t w i t h an e l e c t r o n i c d a t a b a s e . I am n o t s a y i n g
t h e r e i s n o t one o u t t h e r e . I am s a y i n g I was u n a b l e
t o f i n d one.
6
CR-10-1560
"We do r e s t on o u r p o s i t i o n w i t h [ A a r o n ] , a n d
f u r t h e r s t a t e , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h a t , t h e case o f
B.J.C. v. S t a t e , [992 So. 2d 90 ( A l a . C r i m . App.
2008)], I b e l i e v e t h i s i s a j u v e n i l e case d e a l i n g
w i t h a s t o p r e l a t e d t o a handgun o r a f i r e a r m . B u t
t h e - - t h e i m p o r t a n t h o l d i n g i n t h a t case and t h i s has
been e s p o u s e d i n o t h e r c a s e s , 1 1 t h C i r c u i t c a s e s ,
U.S.
Supreme C o u r t c a s e s :
"'The
reasonable
s u s p i c i o n here
issued
r e q u i r e s t h a t a t i p be r e l i a b l e i n i t s
assertion of i l l e g a l i t y , not j u s t i n i t s
t e n d e n c y t o i d e n t i f y and-- a d e t e r m i n a t e
person.'
" I n t h i s c a s e I t h i n k t h e t e s t i m o n y was w i t h o u t
q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e t i p , r e g a r d l e s s o f what i t was i n
--gave r i s e o r a s s e r t e d l e g a l c o n d u c t , Mr. P o l l a r d
b o u g h t one b o x o f p i l l s . Two p o i n t f o u r grams. W e l l
w i t h i n t h e r a n g e a l l o w e d w i t h one d a y i n b e t w e e n 90
days.
"So
t h e t i p was n o t e v e n a s s e r t i n g
illegal
conduct. And then a g a i n ,
we f a l l
b a c k on o u r
p o s i t i o n w i t h [Aaron], t h a t - - t h a t t h e - - t h a t the t i p
must be r e l i a b l e . I n t h i s c a s e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y i s
c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n by t h e very t i p i t s e l f .
" T h e - - a g a i n , as t h e C o u r t i s w e l l aware, t h e - ¬
the
e-mail ask[s]
that
i t be c o n f i r m e d .
Thus,
b a s i c a l l y s t a t i n g on i t s f a c e t h a t i t ' s u n r e l i a b l e ,
s o - - I mean, t h a t ' s k i n d o f where we s t a n d .
"THE
first
COURT: D i d y o u f i n d
anything?
" [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : No, s i r . A n d i t ' s t r u l y a c a s e o f
impression.
"THE
COURT: Okay. A l l r i g h t . W e l l - - a n d t h e
r e a s o n I w a n t e d t o - - t o b r i n g i t up r i g h t now i s
r e a l l y - - I d o n ' t s e e what t h e p u r p o s e o f h a v i n g Mr.
- - i s i t Mr. Macken-7
CR-10-1560
"[Prosecutor]:
Madden.
"THE
COURT: --Mr. Madden
d o e s n ' t have a n y t h i n g t o s h e d
point.
t e s t i f y b e c a u s e he
on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
" [ P o l l a r d ' s c o u n s e l ] : N o t on t h i s p o i n t , Y o u r
Honor, b u t t h e r e - - i f t h i s i s n o t d i s p o s i t i v e o f t h e
i s s u e , he i s g o i n g to--may o f f e r some t e s t i m o n y
r e g a r d i n g consent and t h e i s s u e o f whether o r n o t - "THE
COURT: W e l l - -
" [ P o l l a r d ' s c o u n s e l ] : --He h a d g r o u n d s t o w a i v e
Mr. P o l l a r d ' s r i g h t s , c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t Mr. P o l l a r d
paid for the ride.
"THE COURT: W e l l , I t h i n k t h e [Aaron] c a s e i s
p r e t t y much d i r e c t l y - - a s much as i t c a n b e , d i r e c t l y
on p o i n t . I n f a c t , i t ' s t a l k i n g a b o u t c o l d p i l l s
from Wal-Mart.
"
"THE
COURT: So--so
motion t o suppress."
I am
going
t o grant the
(R. 101-05.)
Thereafter,
on J u l y 7, 2 0 1 1 , t h e c i r c u i t
written
order
granting
Pollard's
finding,
motion
court
issued a
t o suppress
i n p a r t , as f o l l o w s :
" I t appears that t h i s matter i s a matter of
f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n f o r t h i s C o u r t s i n c e i t i n v o l v e s an
electronic
e-mail;
however,
i t i s the Court's
o p i n i o n t h a t t h e c a s e l a w i n v o l v i n g anonymous t i p s
would
be
applicable
to this
fact
situation.
Furthermore,
the Court
took t h i s
matter
under
advisement and asked t h e p a r t i e s t o r e s e a r c h whether
8
and
CR-10-1560
or n o t t h e y c o u l d f i n d a c a s e i n v o l v i n g a s t o p b a s e d
on an e l e c t r o n i c e - m a i l . When t h e h e a r i n g
was
recommenced on June 21, 2011, t h e a t t o r n e y s i n f o r m e d
t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t f i n d any c a s e d i r e c t l y
on p o i n t .
" T h e r e f o r e , b a s e d on t h e a u t h o r i t y as s e t f o r t h
i n [Ex p a r t e A a r o n , 913 So. 2d 1110 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , ]
the c o u r t i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t [ P o l l a r d ' s ] motion
t o s u p p r e s s i s due t o be g r a n t e d . "
(C.
27-28.)
The
State appeals
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 15.7,
Initially,
we
A l a . R.
note
evidence.
Regarding
applied i n this
Crim.
that
g r a n t i n g P o l l a r d ' s motion
the
the
circuit
court's
ruling
court's
order
P.
circuit
t o s u p p r e s s i s b a s e d on u n d i s p u t e d
the
proper
standard
c a s e , t h i s C o u r t has
of
review
to
be
held:
"'The t r i a l c o u r t ' 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 as t o w h e t h e r a g i v e n s e t o f
f a c t s c o n s t i t u t e s reasonable s u s p i c i o n of probable
c a u s e i s r e v i e w e d de novo on a p p e a l . ' S t a t e v.
S m i t h , 785 So. 2d 1169, 1173 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000)
( c i t i n g O r n e l a s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 517 U.S. 690, 699,
116 S. C t . 1657, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ) . '"Where
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
the
ore
tenus
rule
i s inapplicable,
and
the
[appellate court] w i l l
s i t i n j u d g m e n t on
the
e v i d e n c e de novo, i n d u l g i n g no p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r
of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w t o t h o s e
f a c t s . " ' S t a t e v. H i l l , 690 So. 2d 1201, 1203 ( A l a .
1996) ( q u o t i n g S t i l e s v. Brown, 380 So. 2d 792, 794
(Ala.
1980))."
W o r t h y v.
"In
the
State,
instant
91 So.
case,
3d 762,
the
facts
9
765
are
( A l a . C r i m . App.
uncontested;
the
2011).
only
CR-10-1560
i s s u e i s the
circuit
facts.
This
circuit
court's
(Ala.
Court
appeal,
affords
ruling."
C r i m . App.
On
c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of the
no
presumption
Muse v.
State,
42
law
in
to
favor
So.
3d
those
of
the
789,
791
2009).
the
State
argues
(1)
t h a t the
circuit
court
" e r r e d when i t s u p p r e s s e d e v i d e n c e s e i z e d f r o m [ t h e v e h i c l e i n
which
Pollard
was
Detective Michael
v e h i c l e ] had
riding]
because
Rogers's testimony
an o u t s t a n d i n g
the
that
court
overlooked
[the d r i v e r of
the
w a r r a n t f o r h i s a r r e s t " ; and
(2)
3
P o l l a r d c o n t e n d s , i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h a t
the
State's outstanding-warrant
argument i s not p r o p e r l y b e f o r e
t h i s C o u r t f o r r e v i e w b e c a u s e , he s a y s , i t f a i l e d t o f i r s t
r a i s e t h i s c l a i m i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t .
B e c a u s e , h o w e v e r , we
r e v i e w the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o the f a c t s
i n t h i s c a s e de novo, see W o r t h y , 91 So. 3d a t 765, and t h a t
f a c t was s q u a r e l y p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h e argument
i s p r o p e r l y before t h i s Court f o r review.
3
P o l l a r d , i n h i s b r i e f on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ,
c o n t e n d s t h a t o u r h o l d i n g - - t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s argument on a p p e a l
i s p r o p e r l y before t h i s Court f o r review--"'confuses
the
c o n c e p t s o f w a i v e r and de novo r e v i e w . ' " ( P o l l a r d ' s b r i e f on
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , p. 5 ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v. P o l l a r d ,
[Ms. CR-10-1560, Dec. 14, 2012]
So. 3d
,
(Ala. Crim
App. 2012)
(Windom, P . J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . ) The A l a b a m a Supreme
C o u r t has n o t e d t h a t
" ' [ a ] l t h o u g h on a p p e a l
t h e h i g h e r c o u r t may be
law r a i s e d or argued a t
to the arguments t h e r e
and E r r o r § 978
(2007)
f r o m an i n t e r m e d i a t e c o u r t
l i m i t e d t o the q u e s t i o n s of
the t r i a l , i t i s not l i m i t e d
p r e s e n t e d . ' 5 C.J.S. A p p e a l
(emphasis added). In o t h e r
10
CR-10-1560
that
the
circuit
court
" e r r e d when
c o m p u t e r g e n e r a t e d e - m a i l a l e r t was
tip
" ( S t a t e ' s b r i e f , pp.
The
following i s well
8,
i t held
analogous
that
...
the
t o an anonymous
12.)
settled:
"'"Under T e r r y v. O h i o , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. C t .
1868,
20 L. Ed. 2d 889
(1968), law
enforcement
o f f i c e r s may c o n d u c t i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p s o f p e r s o n s
or v e h i c l e s i f t h e y have a ' r e a s o n a b l e 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 ,
or i s a b o u t t o o c c u r . See g e n e r a l l y C a f f i e v. S t a t e ,
516 So. 2d 822, 825-26 ( A l a . C r i m . App.
1986),
[ a f f i r m e d ] , 516 So. 2d 831 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . ' Lamar v.
S t a t e , 578 So. 2d 1382, 1385
( A l a . Crim.
App.),
cert.
denied,
596
So.
2d
659
( A l a . 1991) .
'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. Ed. 2d 301
words,
'[n]ew a r g u m e n t s o r a u t h o r i t i e s
may
p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l , a l t h o u g h no new q u e s t i o n s
be
raised.'
4 C.J.S. A p p e a l
and
Error
§
(emphasis a d d e d ) . "
be
can
297
Ex p a r t e J e n k i n s , 26 So. 3d 464, 473 n. 7 ( A l a . 2009) . Thus,
u n d e r J e n k i n s , a p a r t y w a i v e s on a p p e a l q u e s t i o n s o f l a w n o t
f i r s t raised i n c i r c u i t court.
As s t a t e d a b o v e , t h e o n l y q u e s t i o n o f l a w b e f o r e t h e
c i r c u i t c o u r t was w h e t h e r t h e " e v i d e n c e and s t a t e m e n t s a r e due
t o be s u p p r e s s e d i n t h a t [ t h e ] s e a r c h l e a d i n g t o t h e d i s c o v e r y
of [ t h e ] e v i d e n c e and s t a t e m e n t s [was] c o n d u c t e d w i t h o u t a
s e a r c h w a r r a n t . " (C. 24.)
The S t a t e on a p p e a l i s m e r e l y
a s s e r t i n g an a r g u m e n t - - b a s e d on u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d
t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t - - a s t o why t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n
r u l i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n o f l a w t h a t P o l l a r d r a i s e d i n h i s
motion to suppress.
11
CR-10-1560
(1990), r e q u i r i n g o n l y t h a t the d e t a i n i n g o f f i c e r s
'have 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
suspecting
the
person
detained
of
criminal
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
(Ala. 1986)."'"
Hinkle
v.
State,
86
So.
3d
441,
( q u o t i n g S t a t e v. D a v i s , 7 So.
451
( A l a . C r i m . App.
3d 468,
470
2011)
(Ala. Crim.
App.
2008)).
Here,
that
the
as
discussed
e-mail
above,
generated
by
the
circuit
the
court
National
concluded
Precursor
E n f o r c e m e n t E x c h a n g e P r o g r a m and s e n t t o C a r g i l l was
Law
analogous
t o an anonymous t i p t h a t d i d n o t p r o v i d e a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s t o
c o n d u c t an i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p on t h e v e h i c l e i n w h i c h
was
riding.
relied
To
solely
support
i t s conclusion,
circuit
court
on t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n
i n Ex
p a r t e A a r o n , 913 So. 2d 1110
reliance
on
Aaron,
distinguishable
however,
from t h i s
( A l a . 2005) .
the
Pollard
The c i r c u i t
i s m i s p l a c e d because
court's
Aaron
case.
In Aaron, the f o l l o w i n g o c c u r r e d :
" A a r o n was one o f two p a s s e n g e r s i n an a u t o m o b i l e
b e i n g d r i v e n by [ B r i a n ] S h a v e r . An anonymous t i p ,
p u r p o r t i n g t o be f r o m an e m p l o y e e o f a W a l - M a r t
d i s c o u n t d e p a r t m e n t s t o r e where A a r o n , S h a v e r , and
Joyce L a w l e r Shaver, Shaver's w i f e , had p u r c h a s e d
s e v e r a l packages of o v e r - t h e - c o u n t e r c o l d m e d i c a t i o n
c o n t a i n i n g pseudoephedrine, l e d to a warrantless
12
is
CR-10-1560
stop of Shaver's v e h i c l e
A f t e r t h e v e h i c l e was
s t o p p e d , a d e p u t y s h e r i f f saw t h e p a c k a g e s o f t h e
c o l d m e d i c a t i o n i n ' p l a i n view' i n the v e h i c l e .
S u b s e q u e n t l y , A a r o n , S h a v e r , and J o y c e S h a v e r were
arrested."
913
So.
2d a t 1 1 1 0 - 1 1 .
The
A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t t h e n
that
"'a t i p f r o m an anonymous i n f o r m a n t c o u l d p r o v i d e
r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n f o r an i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p u n d e r
T e r r y v. O h i o , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. C t . 1868, 20 L. Ed.
2d
889
(1968),
i f the
t i p was
sufficiently
c o r r o b o r a t e d t h r o u g h i n d e p e n d e n t p o l i c e work.' S t a t e
v. W h i t e , 854 So. 2d 636, 639 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003)
( c i t i n g A l a b a m a v. W h i t e , 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. C t .
2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ) . From t h e t e s t i m o n y
at the h e a r i n g , i t appears t h a t 'Shaver's v e h i c l e
was s t o p p e d as t h e r e s u l t o f t h e t e l e p h o n e c a l l t o
the p o l i c e f r o m t h e W a l - M a r t [ d i s c o u n t d e p a r t m e n t ]
s t o r e w i t h o u t any i n t e r v e n i n g p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ;
t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e p o l i c e
did a n y t h i n g to c o r r o b o r a t e the i n f o r m a t i o n given i n
the
t e l e p h o n e c a l l from Wal-Mart b e f o r e s t o p p i n g
S h a v e r ' s v e h i c l e . ' Ex p a r t e S h a v e r , 894 So. 2d a t
787.
"In
Ex p a r t e S h a v e r ,
a majority
of t h i s
Court
held:
" ' [ T ] h e s c a n t e v i d e n c e p r o v i d e d by [ t h e
deputy s h e r i f f ] concerning the nature of
the
Wal-Mart
telephone
call
provides
insufficient
indicia
of r e l i a b i l i t y
to
establish
the
requisite
"reasonable
s u s p i c i o n " r e q u i r e d u n d e r T e r r y [v. O h i o ,
392 U.S.
1 (1968)] f o r an i n v e s t i g a t i v e
stop.
As
explained,
no
evidence
was
p r e s e n t e d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t any p o l i c e work
p r e c e d i n g t h e s t o p i n any way c o r r o b o r a t e d
the
t e l e p h o n e t i p so as t o c u m u l a t i v e l y
13
held
CR-10-1560
provide
"reasonable
suspicion,"
as
d i s c u s s e d i n S t a t e v. W h i t e [, 854 So.
2d
636 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ] . I n t h e a b s e n c e
of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e q u i r e d reasonable
s u s p i c i o n t o s u p p o r t t h e i n i t i a l s t o p , none
o f t h e e v i d e n c e g a i n e d as a r e s u l t o f t h a t
stop or the e n s u i n g d e t e n t i o n i s p r o p e r l y
a d m i s s i b l e . A c c o r d i n g l y , the t r i a l c o u r t
e r r e d when i t d e n i e d S h a v e r ' s m o t i o n t o
suppress the evidence,
and t h e C o u r t o f
C r i m i n a l Appeals e r r e d i n a f f i r m i n g the
t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment.'
"894
So.
2d a t
792.
"By
v i r t u e of
the
f a c t t h a t A a r o n was
a
p a s s e n g e r i n S h a v e r ' s v e h i c l e , t h e same e v i d e n c e
that
failed
to
provide
sufficient
indicia
of
reliability
required
to
establish
reasonable
s u s p i c i o n f o r an i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p i n Ex
parte
Shaver
also
provides
insufficient
indicia
of
reliability
required
to
establish
reasonable
suspicion
with
respect
to
Aaron.
Accordingly,
Aaron's motions to suppress the evidence of
the
p i l l s c o n t a i n i n g p s e u d o e p h e d r i n e and t h e s u b s e q u e n t
s t a t e m e n t she made t o p o l i c e a f t e r t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r y
s t o p s h o u l d have b e e n g r a n t e d . "
Ex p a r t e A a r o n , 913
So.
2d a t
1111-12.
Thus, i n A a r o n , t h e s o l e b a s i s f o r t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p
was
an
Cargill
anonymous
received
tip.
Here,
informing
him
unlike
i n Aaron,
that
P o l l a r d had
pseudoephedrine from a Wal-Mart d i s c o u n t
t u r n , r e l a y e d t o R o g e r s , was
e-mail
purchased
s t o r e , w h i c h he,
not the s o l e b a s i s f o r
14
the
in
conducting
CR-10-1560
the
stop
of the v e h i c l e i n which
discussed
above,
suppression
Rogers
seat.
hearing
pulled
occupied
the
up
that
next
by P o l l a r d ,
Rogers then
vehicle's
license
registered
to
State
Pollard
presented
to
the v e h i c l e
he saw P o l l a r d
t a g number,
Madden."
and
a c t i v a t e d h i s emergency
traffic
conducted
stop
on
the
the t r a f f i c
vehicle.
As
at
he
the
believed
When
to
be
passenger
the v e h i c l e , ran the
determined
"was
that
for theft
equipment
According
i t was
informed
and
to
that
of property.
A f t e r R o g e r s l e a r n e d t h a t Madden h a d an o u t s t a n d i n g
Rogers
4
following:
i n the front
Rogers
[Madden] h a d an o u t s t a n d i n g w a r r a n t "
riding.
testimony
e s t a b l i s h e d the
" f e l l back i n behind"
"Steve
was
warrant,
initiated
a
Rogers,
he
s t o p b a s e d on t h e o u t s t a n d i n g
warrant
f o r Madden a n d b a s e d on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n he h a d t h a t
Pollard
had p u r c h a s e d
the
pseudoephedrine.
suppression
hearing
Thus, t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e a t
established a
second,
independent
r e a s o n f o r c o n d u c t i n g t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p on t h e v e h i c l e i n
w h i c h P o l l a r d was
riding.
We n e e d n o t d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y
h e l d t h a t t h e e - m a i l a t i s s u e h e r e i s a n a l o g o u s t o an
anonymous t i p . Even i f t h a t a n a l o g y i s c o r r e c t , A a r o n i s
d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case.
4
15
CR-10-1560
Although P o l l a r d contends, i n h i s b r i e f
"the
record i s completely
devoid
o f any e v i d e n c e t h a t
knew t h a t Madden was d r i v i n g t h e v e h i c l e "
pp.
on a p p e a l ,
Rogers
(Pollard's brief,
1 7 - 1 8 ) , R o g e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n
the
registered
outstanding
sufficient
owner
of
the
vehicle,
warrant f o r t h e f t of property.
justification
t o conduct a stop
Madden,
15-10-3(a),
A l a . Code
enforcement o f f i c e r
person's
misdemeanor
without
1975
(providing
that
had
an
Thus, R o g e r s h a d
on t h e v e h i c l e t o
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r Madden was, i n f a c t , i n t h e v e h i c l e .
[a]
that
that,
when
See §
a law-
"has a c t u a l k n o w l e d g e t h a t a w a r r a n t f o r
arrest
has been
f o r the
issued"
commission
he
may
of
"arrest
a
felony
[that]
a w a r r a n t , on any d a y a n d a t any t i m e " ) .
or
person
5
Accordingly, the c i r c u i t court's order granting P o l l a r d ' s
motion t o suppress i s reversed,
and t h i s
c a s e i s remanded t o
A l t h o u g h P o l l a r d a r g u e s t h a t " t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d no
e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a l l e g e d w a r r a n t f o r Madden was ' i s s u e d i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s c h a p t e r ' " ( P o l l a r d ' s b r i e f , p. 18 ( c i t i n g
§ 1 5 - 1 0 - 3 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) ) , P o l l a r d d i d n o t d i s p u t e t h e
evidence a t the suppression hearing t h a t a t the time of the
s t o p Madden h a d an o u t s t a n d i n g w a r r a n t f o r t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y .
5
16
CR-10-1560
the
circuit
opinion.
court
f o r proceedings
consistent
with
6
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED; OPINION OF
14,
this
2012,
WITHDRAWN;
OPINION
SUBSTITUTED;
DECEMBER
REVERSED
AND
REMANDED.
Welch,
Kellum,
dissents with
and B u r k e ,
J J . , concur.
Windom, P . J . ,
opinion.
A l t h o u g h we h o l d t h a t t h e r e was a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s on
w h i c h t o c o n d u c t an i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p , we e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n
r e g a r d i n g t h e s e a r c h s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e s t o p . The c i r c u i t c o u r t
a d d r e s s e d o n l y t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r y stop and s u p p r e s s e d t h e
S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e on t h a t b a s i s .
This Court, l i k e w i s e ,
a d d r e s s e s o n l y w h e t h e r t h e r e e x i s t e d a l a w f u l b a s i s on w h i c h
t o c o n d u c t an i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p .
6
17
CR-10-1560
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 .
The
State
vehicle
in
properly
d i d not
which
stopped
George
because
outstanding warrant
only
that
a
reasonable
argue
i n the
Willie
the
Pollard
driver
for his arrest.
computer
circuit
message
s u s p i c i o n to stop
court
that
the
traveling
was
v e h i c l e had
an
was
of
the
Instead, the S t a t e argued
from
"Meth
Pollard.
Alert"
I do
not
i s s u e upon w h i c h t h e m a j o r i t y r e v e r s e s
the
7
Therefore,
provided
believe
t h a t the
circuit
court's
review.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
This
Court
judgment
has
was
repeatedly
preserved
held
s p e c i f i c a l l y r a i s e d b e f o r e the t r i a l
n o t p r e s e r v e d on a p p e a l . ' "
(Ala.
Crim.
App.
1999)
that
for
Court's
"'[a]rguments
not
c o u r t a r e w a i v e d and
are
L a n g v. S t a t e , 766
(citing
this
Goodson v.
So. 2d 208,
S t a t e , 540
So.
211
2d
I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y
d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e "Meth A l e r t " f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e r e a s o n a b l e
s u s p i c i o n to stop P o l l a r d .
The
"Automated N o t i f i c a t i o n
R e p o r t " s t a t e d t h a t " [ a ] l l r e p o r t e d h i t s s h o u l d a l w a y s be
c o n f i r m e d w i t h t h e r e p o r t i n g Pharmacy."
(C. 29.)
Here,
" ' t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e p o l i c e d i d
a n y t h i n g to c o r r o b o r a t e the i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n [ i n the a l e r t ]
... b e f o r e s t o p p i n g [ P o l l a r d ] . ' "
Ex p a r t e A a r o n , 913 So. 2d
1110, 1111
( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e S h a v e r , 894 So. 2d
781, 787 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ) .
T h e r e f o r e , the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d not
e r r i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e a l e r t was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a
r e a s o n a b l e 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 was a f o o t .
7
18
CR-10-1560
789,
791
( A l a . C r i m . App.
that
this
Court
will
1988)).
not
Thus, " [ i ] t
reverse
b a s e d on a r g u m e n t s n o t p r e s e n t e d
So.
3d
942,
951
Durham, 906
So.
( A l a . 2010)
2d 157
a
trial
to i t . "
(citing
court's
Noland
In f a c t ,
cannot c o n s i d e r arguments r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t
612
So.
by
the t r i a l
2d 409,
Here, the
the
vehicle
410
court."
t i m e on
for
argument.
reverses
this
his
which
argue i n the
Pollard
Court
however,
court's
arrest;
Accordingly,
the
circuit
and
states
was
circuit
traveling
therefore,
the
issue
should
that
not
be
and
the
arguments
upon
court
was
an
State
which
considered.
"[b]ecause
a p p l i c a t i o n of the
2011)],
appeal;
Co.,
law
...
to the
that
fact
was
3d
we
outstanding
waived
the
The
review
squarely
19
before
majority,
the
circuit
case
de
[(Ala. Crim.
presented
c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h e argument i s p r o p e r l y b e f o r e
that
majority
facts in this
[762,] 765
that
properly
c o u r t ' s judgment i s not p r o p e r l y
novo, see W o r t h y [v. S t a t e ] , 91 So.
App.
v.
Court
Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l
s t o p p e d b e c a u s e t h e d r i v e r o f t h e v e h i c l e had
warrant
46
( A l a . 1992).
S t a t e d i d not
in
Hosp.
"[t]his
r a t h e r , our r e v i e w i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and
considered
judgment
F l u k e r v. W o l f f ,
Lloyd
(Ala. 2005)).
i s well settled
to
the
t h i s Court f o r
CR-10-1560
review."
So. 3d a t
n.3.
upon b y t h e m a j o r i t y i s c o n t a i n e d
Although
the f a c t
i n the record, the State d i d
n o t r e l y on t h a t f a c t and d i d n o t r a i s e any a r g u m e n t
to that f a c t i n the c i r c u i t
Further,
review
relied
relating
court.
to the extent
the m a j o r i t y
holds
that
de
novo
e x c u s e s t h e S t a t e ' s w a i v e r o f t h e argument i t p r e s e n t s
on a p p e a l ,
I b e l i e v e that the m a j o r i t y "confuses the concepts
o f w a i v e r and de novo r e v i e w . "
Matter
317,
the United
319
(7th C i r . 1992).
As
Appeals f o r the Seventh C i r c u i t a p t l y
of Kroner,
953 F. 2d
States
Court
of
explained:
"The
waiver
doctrine
merely
determines
which
arguments a r e p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n
on a p p e a l w h i l e t h e de novo s t a n d a r d
of
review
r e f e r s to the a p p e l l a t e court's f r e s h look at the
way t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s o f
the case.
The l a w i s c l e a r , an i s s u e n o t p r e s e r v e d
for appeal i s simply not reviewable regardless of
the standard of review."
K r o n e r , 953 F.2d a t 319.
Stated d i f f e r e n t l y , "[t]he fact that
[a c a u s e ] i s s u b j e c t t o de novo r e v i e w
rule
[of p r e s e r v a t i o n ]
does i n o t h e r
cases."
applies with
F i s c h e r , 348 S.W.3d 582, 590
does
not excuse
any l e s s
force
than i t
I n r e M a r r i a g e o f W e s t e n d o r f , 165 Or.
App. 175, 178, 996 P. 2d 523, 525
review
does n o t mean t h a t t h e
a
(2000).
(Ky. 2011)
party's
20
See a l s o F i s c h e r v.
( h o l d i n g t h a t de novo
failure
to preserve
the
CR-10-1560
argument r a i s e d on a p p e a l ) ;
June 1,
2001)
(Ohio App.
i n the North Eastern
issue
de
novo, b u t
S t a t e v. G a r r e t t ,
2001)
2000CA115,
(not s e l e c t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n
Reporter)
any
(No.
("Appellate
error that
the
courts
trial
review
court
the
committed
when i t r u l e d on t h a t q u e s t i o n must be p r e s e r v e d f o r a p p e l l a t e
review.").
review
is
seeking
have
to
Consequently,
for
have
properly
r e l i e f on
abuse
a
of
circuit
preserved
of
whether
d i s c r e t i o n or
court's
the
de
argument
upon
a
party
overturned
decision
novo,
appellate
must
which
i t
seeks
appeal.
Here, the
Pollard's
an
regardless
S t a t e d i d not
a r r e s t was
argue t h a t the
p r o p e r b a s e d on
an
t h i s Court f o r review.
t h i s Court should
reverse
on an a r g u m e n t t h a t was
the
circuit
waived.
dissent.
21
resulting in
outstanding
f o r t h e d r i v e r ; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s a r g u m e n t was
properly before
stop
warrant
w a i v e d and i s n o t
I do n o t b e l i e v e
court's
that
judgment based
Consequently, I r e s p e c t f u l l y
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.
