Deputy Lack Justification For Search

[Wilbur]

A videotape of a 2004 traffic stop in Crawford County supports an Arizona man's claim that a deputy sheriff lacked reasonable suspicion to search his vehicle, a divided state Court of Appeals said Wednesday.

In a 6-3 decision, the appeals court found that Crawford County Circuit Judge Mike Medlock erred in denying Anthony Manriquez Enriquez's motion to suppress evidence seized in a vehicle search. The court reversed Medlock's ruling and sent the case back to circuit court.

Sheriff's Deputy Jeff Smith pulled Enriquez over for driving too closely to another vehicle, the court said. During the traffic stop, Smith discovered that Enriquez's driver's license was suspended. The officer gave Enriquez a warning for following too closely but did not cite him for driving with a suspended license.

When Smith asked for permission to search the car, Enriquez refused and the officer immediately removed a dog from his patrol car and walked it around the car, then searched the car. The officer found several large bundles of marijuana in the trunk of the car, according to the court record.

Enriquez pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and received a 15-year suspended sentence.

However, he argued on appeal that Smith had no justification to detain him and search the car after citing him.

Smith testified in court that he became suspicious because Enriquez seemed nervous, the rental car he was driving had a "lived-in" look and Enriquez's travel plans - he said he was driving from Nevada to New York and had the car for three weeks - were suspicious.

Smith also said he would not have allowed Smith to drive away from the scene with a suspended license. The marijuana would have been found anyway when the car was impounded, the state argued.

The Court of Appeals found that Enriquez's nervousness, the fact that items were scattered in the car and Enriquez's stated travel plans were not reasonable grounds for detention. The court rejected Smith's claim that he would have impounded the vehicle.

"It is apparent that Smith did not impound the car, and his actions as shown on the videotape belie his assertion at trial that he was not going to allow the vehicle to leave," Judge Josephine Linker Hart in the majority opinion.

Judges Sam Bird, Olly Neal, Larry Vaught, Andree Layton Roaf and Wendell Griffen joined in the majority opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Terry Crabtree said Smith failure to tell Enriquez his vehicle would be impounded did not necessarily mean Smith would have allowed the vehicle to leave.

"I know of no rule requiring an officer to inform a traffic offender about his subjective intentions and planned course of action," Crabtree wrote.

Chief Judge John Pittman and Judge David Glover joined in the dissent.


Newshawk: User - 420 Magazine
Source: Arkansas News Bureau
Pubdate: 7 December 2006
Author: John Lyon
Copyright: 2006 Arkansas News Bureau
Contact: Arkansas News Bureau
Website: Arkansas News Bureau

[Cherma]

As Judge Ellis wrote to the DEA: You followed this man for 22 hours 3 states, 2 airports, and never had a search warrant?
Case Dismissed: "It only takes 24 minutes to obtain a Search Warrant".Said Judge Ellis.
The Man being questioned for 3 hours had stated only 3 things his name, am I under arrest? if not may I leave. The man was denied leaving, after attempts to question him for over 3 hours. There was never any "Consent" to be searched or any luggage to be searched.
Never plead Guilty to Possesion with intent to Distribute: Never plead Guilty to Manufacturing:
If one must plead, plead to " Posession" only. 99% this can be removed from your record in 5 years. But why put yourself in any position to have this happen.
Regulate & Taxation is the better answer

[Pythaglio]

Dude sounds damn lucky to me. The inevitable discovery argument was a good one. That's got to be the 9th circuit, no? WTF is someone hauling serious weight with a suspended license?