 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Watson4/4/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION AFFIRMING
The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from an order from the Christian Circuit Court suppressing evidence seized in a warrantless search from a vehicle driven by Antoine Watson. After a careful review of the legal issues presented, we affirm.
Watson was driving a car with an Illinois tag through a construction zone in Oak Grove, Kentucky, with his girlfriend, Linda Davis, who owned the car, and their infant child. Kentucky State Trooper John Clark pulled Watson over on
suspicion of driving under the influence after he allegedly observed the vehicle weaving across the road. Clark administered field sobriety tests to Watson and concluded that he was not intoxicated. However, a computer check revealed that his Georgia driver's license had been suspended and (incorrectly) indicated that the vehicle's registration had expired. Clark arrested Watson on traffic charges, handcuffed him, and placed him in the backseat of his police cruiser while he searched Davis' vehicle. During a search of the trunk, Clark encountered a sealed cardboard box with a bill of lading stating that it contained videotapes. Clark cut the box open and found tapes of movies which were still showing in theaters and had not been released on video.
Watson was subsequently indicted for multiple counts of unauthorized reproduction and distribution of a recorded article or device for sale or rent, pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute 434.445. His attorney filed a motion to suppress the videotapes arguing that no probable cause existed to search the vehicle's trunk, no consent by the driver or owner of the car, no exigent circumstances, and that the search was not authorized by Watson's arrest on traffic charges. During the hearing, Clark testified that both Watson and Davis gave him permission to search the vehicle. On the other hand, Watson and Davis testified that Clark searched the vehicle without asking for their consent. The trial court found that Clark's act of opening the sealed box violated Watson's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and suppressed the videotapes. This appeal followed.
The Commonwealth first argues that Clark had sufficient probable cause to search the car's trunk and open the box of videotapes incident to Watson's arrest. The trial court properly determined that Clark had probable cause to stop the vehicle due to a suspicion that Watson was driving under the influence . Moreover, Clark also acted properly when he arrested Watson for driving on a suspended license. Pursuant to that arrest, Clark was allowed to search the passenger compartment of the car Watson was driving. Commonwealth v. Wood, Ky. App., 14 S.W.3d 557 (1999). However, the search of the trunk and the contents of the cardboard box located in the trunk exceeded Clark's authority to perform a search incident to Watson's arrest.
The Commonwealth also contends that Watson and Davis, who actually owned the car, consented to the search of the entire vehicle and the contents of the cardboard box. In support of this argument, the Commonwealth offered Clark's testimony that he received consent to search the car. However, additional testimony from Watson and Davis indicates that they gave no such consent. The one point on which the parties agree is that Watson asked Clark to cut around the mailing label on the box when he opened it. The trial court held that this exchange was insufficient to establish that Watson consented to a search of the box's contents.
The trial court applied the following reasoning to explain its finding that Clark's warrantless search of the cardboard box in the trunk exceeded
Page 1 2 3 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|