STATE of Tennessee v. Marcus RICHARDS

Citations: 286 S.W.3d 873; 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 336Docket: M2006-02179-SC-R11-CD

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court; July 10, 2009; Tennessee; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addresses the case of State of Tennessee v. Marcus Richards, focusing on whether law enforcement had probable cause to search Richards after arresting him for simple possession of cocaine. The Court concluded that probable cause was lacking, a decision that Justice William C. Koch, Jr. dissented from, believing the warrantless search following Richards's arrest was valid based on the circumstances. 

On June 3, 2005, Lieutenant Chris Clausi received a tip about a potential drug deal involving Trent Covington and a man in a purple truck, later identified as Maurice Head. Officers Brent Rose and André Davis, responding to the tip, observed four individuals at a picnic table, including Richards. Upon approaching, they noted suspicious behavior and saw white powder, later identified as cocaine, on the table and ground. Despite insufficient powder for analysis, field tests confirmed its identity.

After a brief initial pat-down, the officers searched Richards again and found cocaine and marijuana in his pocket. The trial court upheld the search, but the Court of Criminal Appeals deemed the second search invalid, arguing it exceeded the scope of a Terry stop. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, stating that the officers did not have probable cause to justify a full custodial arrest of Richards.

The Court's opinion outlines four critical factors for validating a warrantless search incident to an arrest: (1) the arresting officers must have probable cause to believe the defendant is engaged in illegal activity; (2) the officers must have the authority for a full custodial arrest based on that probable cause; (3) the arrest must occur before or simultaneously with the search; and (4) the search must be incident to the arrest, not its cause. The Court determined that Mr. Richards's arrest was invalid due to failure in satisfying Factors (1) and (4), specifically lacking probable cause and indicating that the search caused the arrest rather than being incidental to it.

Probable cause is described as a "practical, nontechnical" standard that considers the totality of circumstances and is not easily defined. It requires more than mere suspicion and must be specific to the individual involved, rather than based on proximity to suspected individuals. In the case of Ybarra v. Illinois, the Court struck down a search where the police had no probable cause against an individual despite having a warrant for the premises. In contrast, in Maryland v. Pringle, the Court upheld probable cause based on reasonable inferences from shared circumstances among individuals in a vehicle containing drugs and cash.

Possession of cocaine and marijuana is classified as a Class A misdemeanor in Tennessee, requiring evidence that the defendant could exercise control over the substances, either directly or constructively. Constructive possession necessitates proof of the ability and intention to control the drugs at a given time.

Possession of a controlled substance does not require exclusivity and can be shared among multiple individuals. To establish simple possession, it must be shown that the accused exercised dominion and control over the substance, was aware of its presence, and recognized it as a controlled substance. Mere proximity to the substance or being in the presence of others possessing it is insufficient for proving possession. When the accused does not exclusively control the location of the substance, additional incriminating evidence must link them to the substance. Factors that courts consider include whether the drugs are in plain view, the proximity of the contraband to the accused, any suspicious behavior exhibited by the accused, the quantity of drugs, the presence of drug paraphernalia, the accused's relationship to the location, and any incriminating statements made. The significance of these factors is assessed based on their logical relevance rather than their quantity. Notably, the visibility of the controlled substance in conjunction with the accused's presence increases the likelihood of shared possession. In a specific case, Mr. Richards was observed with others, and their behavior changed upon the approach of law enforcement, suggesting possible joint possession when one individual discarded a drug-related item.

Officers discovered white powder, later confirmed as cocaine, scattered on a table where Mr. Richards sat. Mr. Head was holding a rolled-up dollar bill with white powder, suggesting drug use. A search of Mr. Covington’s wheelchair also revealed cocaine. The circumstances led the officers to reasonably believe all individuals at the table, including Mr. Richards, were in possession of the cocaine, as it was in plain view and easily accessible. Unlike cases where the drugs were not visible or controlled by others, Mr. Richards was in close proximity to the substance, and no one at the table denied ownership of the drugs. The situation indicated active drug use rather than a past drug deal, providing probable cause for Mr. Richards' arrest, independent of a citizen informant's tip that had not linked him to any drug transaction. The officers' observations justified both the arrest and subsequent search of Mr. Richards, although the court noted that the arrest should occur prior to or simultaneously with the search, a factor not critical in this case.

An arrest can occur immediately after a search, provided it is contemporaneous with the search. The Court references State v. Crutcher, which states that an arrest must happen prior to or contemporaneously with a search for the search to be considered "incident to" the arrest. Crutcher relies on Rawlings v. Kentucky, where the Supreme Court upheld an arrest following a search. However, Crutcher was distinguished because the suspect was arrested hours later, not immediately post-search. The Crutcher decision emphasizes that a search cannot be justified as incident to an arrest merely because probable cause existed if the arrest did not occur in close temporal proximity to the search. It requires both independent probable cause for the arrest and that the arrest occurs closely enough in time to be viewed as part of the same transaction. The principle upheld is that a search is lawful if conducted under a valid warrant or as incident to a lawful arrest, even if the search precedes the arrest, as long as they are part of the same event. An arrest involves a physical or constructive restraint on a person's freedom, which does not necessitate formalities like a declaration or booking. In Mr. Richards's case, even if the arrest happened after the search, their proximity allows them to be considered contemporaneous, thus not warranting suppression of the search's results, given the probable cause for the arrest.

The Court invalidated the second search of Mr. Richards, ruling it was the cause of his arrest rather than incidental to it. It emphasized that the legality of a search cannot be based on an arrest that is itself reliant on the discovery from that search, referencing precedents that prohibit such circular reasoning. The Court found no probable cause for Mr. Richards's arrest based solely on his possession of cocaine on a picnic table, indicating that the arrest must not be justified by the search's outcomes. However, a dissenting opinion argues there was independent probable cause for the arrest due to Mr. Richards's constructive possession of the cocaine, asserting the search complied with the requirement of being incident to the arrest. The dissent notes that the officers had reasonable belief of Mr. Richards's joint possession of the cocaine and that the search and arrest occurred simultaneously, thus supporting the trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search.