Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; August 3, 1990; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Robert David Key was indicted for possession of marijuana, having pleaded not guilty initially. After a hearing, his motion to suppress evidence was denied, leading him to plead guilty while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. He received a two-year sentence, split into 12 months in jail and 3 years of probation.
During the suppression hearing, Investigator Terry Ergle testified about receiving a tip from a reliable confidential informant regarding Key's possession of marijuana and his planned route. Following this tip, Ergle and other officers conducted surveillance, observing Key leave his residence with a brown paper bag and drive a gray Volkswagen. After tracking Key to a service station, they attempted to stop him. When Key did not comply, multiple police cars boxed him in. As Ergle approached, he noted a strong smell of marijuana emanating from the vehicle.
Upon stopping Key and checking the bag, Ergle found approximately one pound of marijuana. Key later consented to a warrantless search of his residence, where officers discovered additional marijuana and paraphernalia. Key argues on appeal that the informant's tip did not provide sufficient grounds for the investigatory stop, and that a search warrant could have been obtained, negating the need for a warrantless search of his car.
Probable cause is not required for stopping an individual for questioning or investigative detention; officers need only demonstrate reasonable suspicion based on specific facts and inferences suggestive of criminal activity, as established in Terry v. Ohio. Alabama law (Ala. Code 1975, § 15-5-30) permits law enforcement to stop individuals suspected of committing a felony or public offense. Reasonable suspicion can be informed by citizen-informants, as seen in Crawley v. State, and can be bolstered by corroborating police work, as illustrated in Adams v. Williams and Alabama v. White. In the case at hand, the stop of Key was justified based on a confidential tip corroborated by police investigation. The informant, a known source with a history of reliable information, provided detailed predictions about Key's actions, including details about his vehicle and possession of marijuana. The police verified nearly all aspects of the informant's tip, observing Key leaving his residence and driving the described vehicle. Although they did not confirm his predicted destination, the officers noted Key's evasive behavior, such as speeding away upon spotting Investigator Ergle and attempting to evade capture despite being surrounded by police vehicles. These actions, combined with the corroborated tip, provided sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, thus upholding the legality of the investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment.
The investigative stop of Key's car was justified based on a reliable tip from a known informant, corroborated by independent police work. A warrantless search of an automobile is permissible when both probable cause and exigent circumstances are present. The odor of marijuana is sufficient for establishing probable cause for such a search. In this case, Investigator Ergle detected the smell of fresh-cut marijuana inside Key's vehicle, which he recognized from previous experiences. Following this, he observed a brown paper bag on the passenger front floorboard, similar to one seen in Key's possession earlier. The mobile nature of the vehicle constituted exigent circumstances. Therefore, the warrantless search was valid under the probable-cause-plus-exigent-circumstances exception, leading to the denial of Key's motion to suppress the evidence obtained. The judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, with the opinion authored by Retired Justice JAMES H. FAULKNER and concurred by several justices.
