Jones v. State

Citations: 401 So. 2d 322; 1981 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2363Docket: 8 Div. 422

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; June 23, 1981; Alabama; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On March 10, 1980, the appellant was indicted for transporting over five gallons of liquor in violation of Alabama law. Following a jury trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to one year and one day in jail. The case arose when J. D. Burchett, an agent for the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, observed a beige Chevrolet pickup truck loading boxes at a liquor store in Huntsville on January 17, 1980. Burchett had previously seen the same truck on January 3 and 10, also loading boxes from the store. After a meeting with other agents to strategize following the truck, Burchett tracked it on January 17 but lost sight of it temporarily. The truck was subsequently stopped by agents in Lauderdale County, a dry county, based on probable cause that it contained liquor. Agent Kirk, believing there was probable cause, searched the truck without a warrant, finding thirty-three cases of whiskey and a case of wine. The appellant's objection to the search's contents was overruled, and he argued this was erroneous. The court ruled that the search was justified under exigent circumstances, as the truck's mobility and the potential for loss of evidence negated the practicality of obtaining a search warrant. The ruling referenced established legal precedents supporting warrantless searches in such contexts.

The truck was identified as capable of moving out of a dry county to dispose of liquor, creating a situation with exigent circumstances and probable cause for a search. Officer Burchett observed boxes being loaded from a state liquor store onto the truck, leading to the inference that these boxes contained liquor. The truck had a distinct description known to the agents involved, allowing Agent Burchett to communicate effectively about it without needing further details. Appellant did not provide testimony or evidence in his defense. When an officer with probable cause radios ahead for a vehicle stop, the officers conducting the stop have valid grounds for arrest and search without a warrant. 

The appellant argued that the violation of Alabama Code § 28-4-200, a misdemeanor for transporting Alabama tax-paid liquor, should apply instead of § 28-4-115, a felony statute concerning prohibited liquors. § 28-4-115 was enacted in 1927 as part of prohibition laws and later limited to dry counties by the Alabama Beverage Control Act in 1936. The statute prohibits the transport of five or more gallons of liquor deemed illegal in Alabama, with penalties including imprisonment for one to five years. The definition of "prohibited liquors" encompasses a wide range of alcoholic beverages, including spirits, malt beverages, and imitation drinks.

Alabama Code 28-4-1(6) existed as part of the Alabama Code 4615-4619 in 1923 and was referenced when the Legislature enacted 28-4-115 in 1927, which, along with 28-4-1(6), applied specifically to "dry counties" upon the passage of the Alabama Beverage Control Act in 1936. Code 28-4-200 allows individuals aged 19 and over to possess certain amounts of alcoholic beverages in dry counties, provided these beverages are from state liquor stores and have the necessary identification and tax stamps. Specifically, individuals may possess up to three quarts of liquor and one case of malt or brewed beverages, or three quarts of wine and one case of malt or brewed beverages, but these must not be in the passenger area of a vehicle or visible to passengers. There is no conflict between 28-4-115 and 28-4-200, as they address different circumstances; 28-4-115 pertains to transporting five or more gallons of liquor, while 28-4-200 allows possession of less than five gallons for personal use. The case of Johnston v. State clarifies that 28-4-200 does not address transportation, and prior to its enactment, possession was considered a violation. The appellant was charged with transporting five or more gallons of liquor and was found guilty; the court affirmed the conviction, having found sufficient evidence and no errors affecting the appellant's substantial rights. All judges concurred with the decision.