Christopher v. State , 520 S.W.3d 291 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                 Cite as 
    2017 Ark. App. 237
    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION III
    No. CR-16-1006
    Opinion Delivered   April 19, 2017
    MARCUS DOUGLAS CHRISTOPHER
    APPELLANT                      APPEAL FROM THE NEVADA
    COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    V.                                               [NO. 50CR-15-18]
    STATE OF ARKANSAS                                HONORABLE RANDY WRIGHT,
    APPELLEE         JUDGE
    AFFIRMED
    N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge
    After his vehicle was searched following a traffic stop, appellant Marcus Christopher
    was charged with possession of cocaine with the purpose to deliver, possession of marijuana
    with the purpose to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Nevada County
    Circuit Court denied appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search,
    and appellant entered conditional guilty pleas to the charges.1 On appeal, he argues that the
    trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the warrantless search of his
    vehicle was illegal. We disagree and affirm the convictions.
    Deputy Preston Glenn of the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department and Lieutenant
    Wesley Turner of the Prescott Police Department provided testimony at the suppression
    hearing. Turner testified that on the afternoon of March 6, 2015, Glenn called to advise him
    1
    The additional charges of driving with a suspended license and defective brake light
    were nol-prossed.
    Cite as 
    2017 Ark. App. 237
    that he had received reports that someone driving a black Kia Spectra in the area was acting
    suspicious. The vehicle was reported to be circling blocks, which Turner said was something
    drug dealers sometimes do. Glenn initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle after observing that
    one of its brake lights was not working. After driving a couple hundred yards, appellant
    stopped in a parking lot. When Glenn approached the vehicle and asked appellant for his
    driver’s license, he smelled a very strong odor of marijuana emitting from the vehicle. Glenn
    said that the odor gave him probable cause to search the vehicle, so he asked appellant to step
    out. Turner arrived on the scene to assist Glenn, and other officers were called for backup
    because a crowd of people, including relatives of appellant’s, had gathered in the parking lot.
    Glenn testified that he spoke with appellant at the back of the car and handcuffed him to
    detain him.
    Turner testified that when he arrived at the stop, he looked through the back-
    passenger window of appellant’s vehicle and saw a Crown Royal bag that appeared to
    contain a bottle of whiskey. Turner asked appellant if the seal had been broken on the
    bottle; appellant said it had not and then stated that there was no alcohol in his car. In order
    to see what was in the bottle, Turner opened the car door and detected a strong odor of
    marijuana. He discovered that the Crown Royal bag contained marijuana packaged in plastic
    wrap. When he opened the door, Turner had not been informed by Glenn about the smell
    of marijuana or instructed to conduct a search. Turner showed Glenn what he had found,
    appellant was arrested, and Glenn then searched the vehicle and seized more drugs and drug
    2
    Cite as 
    2017 Ark. App. 237
    paraphernalia. Turner testified that appellant was handcuffed after the marijuana had been
    found. The trial court denied the motion to suppress upon finding the existence of probable
    cause and exigent circumstances to support the warrantless search.
    In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we conduct a de novo
    review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical fact for
    clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable
    cause, giving due weight to inferences drawn by the trial court and proper deference to the
    trial court’s findings. Johnson v. State, 
    2014 Ark. App. 567
    , 
    444 S.W.3d 880
    . Arkansas
    appellate courts defer to the superior position of the trial court to evaluate the credibility of
    witnesses at a suppression hearing. 
    Id. We will
    reverse the denial of a motion to suppress
    only if the ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 
    Id. Appellant argues
    that the officers conducted a pretextual stop in order to search his
    vehicle for drugs. He suggests that Deputy Glenn attempted to conceal this fact because he
    did not testify about the prior reports of a suspicious vehicle. A pretextual traffic stop,
    however, is not unconstitutional. State v. Mancia-Sandoval, 
    2010 Ark. 134
    , 
    361 S.W.3d 835
    .
    As long as the police officer had the proper probable cause to make the traffic stop, the
    officer’s ulterior motives will not render the stop unconstitutional. See 
    id. Here, Glenn
    had
    probable cause to believe that appellant had violated the traffic law requiring functioning
    brake lights. See Sims v. State, 
    356 Ark. 507
    , 
    157 S.W.3d 530
    (2004); Ark. Code Ann. §
    27-36-216 (Repl. 2014). Therefore, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional or invalid
    3
    Cite as 
    2017 Ark. App. 237
    about the initial traffic stop.
    Appellant next argues that Turner had no probable cause to search the vehicle based
    on his observation of the Crown Royal bag and that Glenn’s subsequent search was tainted
    by Turner’s illegal search. Although Turner had not yet detected the odor of marijuana
    when he initiated the search, probable cause is assessed based on the collective knowledge
    of the police, not solely on the knowledge of the officer making the stop or arrest. Jones v.
    State, 
    2011 Ark. App. 683
    . At the time Turner initiated the search, Glenn had already
    decided to search the vehicle based on the odor of marijuana he identified when he asked
    appellant for his driver’s license. We have held that the odor of marijuana coming from a
    vehicle is sufficient to arouse suspicion and provide probable cause for the search of that
    vehicle. Lopez v. State, 
    2009 Ark. App. 750
    . Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that
    probable cause existed for this search.
    Appellant also argues that there were no exigent circumstances to warrant the search
    because there was no threat of destruction or removal of evidence. We disagree. Arkansas
    Rule of Criminal Procedure 14.1(a)(i) (2016) allows for a warrantless search of a readily
    movable vehicle that an officer has reasonable cause to believe contains evidence subject to
    seizure where the vehicle is in an area open to the public. Because a vehicle is readily
    movable by any person, not just the suspect, exigent circumstances allow the vehicle to be
    searched at the scene. McDaniel v. State, 
    337 Ark. 431
    , 
    990 S.W.2d 515
    (1999). Appellant’s
    vehicle was in a parking lot open to the public and was readily movable, especially with his
    4
    Cite as 
    2017 Ark. App. 237
    relatives among the crowd of people that had gathered; no further exigency was required to
    search it. See Vega v. State, 
    56 Ark. App. 145
    , 
    939 S.W.2d 322
    (1997).
    While appellant also points out the discrepancy in the testimony concerning the point
    at which he was handcuffed, he cites no authority to support his contention that handcuffing
    him prior to the search “would have been illegal” and provides no argument that this would
    have rendered the search unconstitutional. We hold that the denial of appellant’s motion to
    suppress was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, and we affirm appellant’s
    convictions.
    Affirmed.
    WHITEAKER and BROWN, JJ., agree.
    Bill Luppen, for appellant.
    Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Bailey Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CR-16-1006

Citation Numbers: 2017 Ark. App. 237, 520 S.W.3d 291

Judges: N. Mark Klappenbach

Filed Date: 4/19/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023