Baird v. State6/28/2002
>
Baird asserts 11 issues on appeal, and we address each in turn.
I.
First, Baird argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle. Specifically, Baird argues that the trial court should have held that the gun and the prescription bottles were inadmissible because, according to Baird, they were seized during an unconstitutional warrantless search of his car. At trial, Baird argued that the State had not shown "a prerequisite" for the search. (R. 258.) The trial court conducted a hearing on Baird's motion to suppress. At the hearing, Baird argued that the items should have been suppressed because the police did not obtain a warrant and the search was not an inventory search. We disagree.
"In reviewing a trial judge's decision on a motion to suppress where the evidence is not in dispute, we apply a de novo standard of review. See State v. Hill, 690 So. 2d 1201 (Ala. 1996); Barnes v. State, 704 So. 2d 487 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997)." Tuohy v. State, 776 So. 2d 896, 898 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999); State v. Otwell, 733 So. 2d 950, 952 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
In State v. Otwell, supra, this Court stated:
"'"This court has long held that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless they fall within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., Chevere v. State, 607 So. 2d 361, 368 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). These exceptions are: (1) plain view; (2) consent; (3) incident to a lawful arrest; (4) hot pursuit or emergency; (5) probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances; (6) stop and frisk situations; and (7) inventory searches. Ex parte Hilley, 484 So. 2d 485, 488 (Ala. 1985); Chevere, supra, 607 So. 2d at 368."' "State v. Mitchell, 722 So. 2d 814 [,820] (Ala.Cr.App. 1998), quoting Rokitski v. State, 715 So. 2d 859 [,861] (Ala.Cr.App. 1997)." 733 So. 2d at 952.
"'When officers lawfully arrest an automobile occupant, they may search the passenger compartment of the automobile as a contemporaneous incident of the arrest, and they also may examine the contents of containers found in the automobile.'" State v. Otwell, 733 So. 2d at 954, quoting United States v. Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F.2d 1216, 1222 (11th Cir. 1993). "This is so even though the appellant was already handcuffed and placed in the police officer's car when the appellant's car was searched." Mason v. State, 768 So. 2d 981, 999 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998), aff'd, 768 So. 2d 1008 (Ala. 2000), citing Gundrum v. State, 563 So. 2d 27 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990).
Because the deputy discovered the gun and prescription bottles during a search that was incident to a lawful arrest, there was no need for a warrant. The search was valid as an exception to the search warrant requirement, and the ruling of the trial judge on Baird's motion to suppress was correct. Because his claim is without merit, Baird is not entitled to any relief.
II.
Second, Baird argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the audiotaped and videotaped confession he gave police. Specifically, he contends that the confession was not voluntarily given because, he says, he was under the influence of Xanax and because, he says, Deputy James Edwards used prayer and religious counseling to coerce him to confess. We disagree.
Baird filed a pretrial motion to suppress the statement, and the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion. After hearing evidence from Baird and the prosecution and viewing the videotaped statement and listening to the audiotaped version, the trial judge denied Baird's motion to suppress the statement. At trial, Baird preserved this claim for appeal with a timely
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|