 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dansby v. Commonwealth11/24/2004
AFFIRMING
Troy Zandale Dansby appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana and of being a persistent felony offender, second degree. Dansby contends that the drugs recovered from his vehicle following his arrest should have been suppressed. We disagree and affirm the final judgment and sentence of imprisonment entered by the Fayette Circuit Court on November 5, 2003.
Officer Jeff Jacobs of the Fayette Urban County Police Department testified that he pulled over Dansby's vehicle on August 16, 2002, after the officer observed Dansby fail to stop at a stop sign. The officer obtained Dansby's driver's license and ran a routine check for outstanding warrants. Information was obtained that Dansby had an outstanding warrant for an alcohol intoxication charge. Based on the warrant Dansby was arrested and placed in the back seat of the police cruiser.
Officer Jacobs then searched Dansby's car and found crack cocaine in the glove box and marijuana in the center console. When questioned, Dansby admitted the marijuana was his but denied any knowledge of the cocaine. Dansby was subsequently indicted by the Fayette County Grand Jury. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized and a hearing was held on May 27, 2003. Dansby admits that at the suppression hearing he argued that Officer Jacobs had no reason to stop the vehicle and that the unlawful stop was the basis for the suppression motion. On appeal, he contends that the traffic violation was a sufficient basis to stop his car and now argues that the search incident to the arrest was unlawful. Dansby contends that this Court should review his appeal under the palpable error rule. RCr 10.26 provides:
A palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a party may be considered . . . by an appellate court on appeal, even though insufficiently raised or preserved for review, and appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the error.
We agree that Dansby's substantial rights would be affected if the contraband was improperly seized and we will address the merits of his appeal.
In reviewing the decision of a circuit court on a motion to suppress following a hearing, this Court must first examine the trial court's factual findings for clear error. The findings of fact are conclusive. Although presented with an argument relating to the stop of the vehicle as opposed to the search incident to the arrest, the findings of fact made by the trial judge are supported by substantial, uncontradicted evidence and therefore are conclusive. This Court must then perform a de novo review of the factual findings to determine whether the court's decision is correct as a matter of law. Based upon our de novo review, the relevant findings of fact establish that Dansby was arrested on an outstanding warrant, and therefore, Officer Jacobs was justified in searching Dansby's vehicle incident to his arrest.
The law of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution establishes that "all searches without a valid search warrant are unreasonable unless shown to be within one of the exceptions to the rule that a search must rest upon a valid warrant. The burden is on the prosecution to show the search comes within an exception." The exception relevant to the instant appeal, search incident to arrest, establishes that, in relation to automobiles if there is probable cause to make an arrest, the probable cause carries over to justify a search of the entire passenger compartment of the automobile.
Dansby relies on Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|