Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The police arrived with a warrant to search appellant’s cousin’s house, including all vehicles and detached buildings within the curtilage, and to arrest a man named “Doug.” While executing the warrant, the police did not find anyone in the house. They did find people in the detached garage within the fence surrounding the lot on which the house was located. The police patted down all the people in the garage, laid them face down on the floor, and cuffed them. The police asked appellant for his name and he said, “Doug.” The police noticed that a green truck was parked on the curb and searched the truck. The truck was driven by appellant but was owned by his mother. The police arrested appellant for possession of crack cocaine found in a shaving kit inside a gym bag inside the truck. Appellant was indicted on two counts of possession of a controlled substance, namely cocaine, of four grams or more, but less than two hundred grams, with the intent to deliver. The indictment also contained a repeat offender notice. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court denied. Appellant then agreed to a plea bargain, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The state argues that the appellant had no standing to challenge the search of the truck he was driving. Yet at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the state argued, “[I]t’s our contention that it was a consensual search; and secondly, the officers had probable cause to search this vehicle. . . . [T]hey had probable cause because they knew it was his car.” The court holds that the state is judicially estopped from arguing that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the search of the vehicle that the state argued belonged, in the legal sense, to the appellant. The court nevertheless addresses the issue of the appellant’s standing to challenge the search of the vehicle. The trial court found that the appellant was driving his mother’s car, that they lived at the same address, and that the car was usually driven by the appellant and his wife. The appellant testified without contradiction that the vehicle was never driven by his mother. This evidence is uncontroverted, and there is no evidence that the truck was stolen. The court holds that the appellant has satisfied his burden to show standing to contest the search of the truck. The trial court erred in finding that the public sidewalk, curb, and street were within the curtilage of the home in question. Because the warrant authorized the search of vehicles within the curtilage of the home only, and because the truck was not located within the curtilage of the home, the search of appellant’s truck exceeded the scope of the warrant. Because the state failed to sustain its burden of showing probable cause to justify the warrantless search, the search of appellant’s truck is not justified under the automobile exception. The trial judge was not convinced that the appellant voluntarily consented to the search of his truck. He found that the state failed to sustain its burden of showing free and voluntary consent to search. The court will not disturb the trial court’s determination. OPINION:Dauphinot, J., delivered the court’s opinion. DISSENT:Livingston, J. “I would conclude that the search warrant itself authorized the search of the vehicle because it was located on the premises described within the search warrant. Because I would uphold the search of the vehicle on this basis, I believe the discussion regarding the automobile exception and consent is unnecessary. For all these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.