AL: Burglars of defendant’s property could be CIs

Four men were arrested trying to break into defendant’s property. They claimed they were looking for marijuana that they believed would be there. The police used that information to get a search warrant, and five pounds of marijuana were found. The fact they were first time CIs did not make them unreliable. [Well, every CI has to start somewhere.] State v. Jenkins, 26 So. 3d 458 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), released for publication January 4, 2010, affirmed by Ex parte Jenkins, 26 So. 3d 464 (Ala., 2009).

Defendant was stopped for pulling out of a convenience store without headlights at 3 a.m. The officer observed a baggy of probable meth when he was talking to the defendant getting his driver’s license. The officer called for backup. The officer had probable cause for a search of the car without being able to specifically identify what was in the baggy. United States v. Garcia, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8689 (D. Nev. January 5, 2010)*:

Here, at the initial point of contact with Garcia, Officer Sutton observed a clear baggy containing a crystalline substance. Based on his experience and training, he immediately identified the substance as a possible controlled substance–methamphetamine. Garcia does not dispute the presence or location of the methamphetamine, but argues that the particles were so small that it was impossible for Officer Sutton to ascertain that they were, in fact, methamphetamine. However, the inability to immediately identify the substance as methamphetamine is not dispositive. “[I]t is settled law that officers may “‘draw on their own experience about cumulative information available to them that might well elude an untrained person.'” Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Hernandez, 313 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002))). The court finds that, a reasonable person with Officer Sutton’s experience and training would have concluded, as Officer Sutton did, that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of criminal activity. Thus, under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement, the police were authorized to search the vehicle. The evidence obtained as a result of the vehicle search is admissible. 7

7 The court finds separately that, standing alone, the immediately recognizable drug contraband supplied the necessary probable cause to conduct the warrantless search.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.