Christopher v. State , 2017 Ark. App. LEXIS 247 ( 2017 )

Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 237
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-16-1006
Opinion Delivered April 19, 2017
MARCUS DOUGLAS CHRISTOPHER
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE NEVADA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 50CR-15-18]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE RANDY WRIGHT,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge
After his vehicle was searched following a traffic stop, appellant Marcus Christopher
was charged with possession of cocaine with the purpose to deliver, possession of marijuana
with the purpose to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Nevada County
Circuit Court denied appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search,
and appellant entered conditional guilty pleas to the charges.1 On appeal, he argues that the
trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the warrantless search of his
vehicle was illegal. We disagree and affirm the convictions.
Deputy Preston Glenn of the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department and Lieutenant
Wesley Turner of the Prescott Police Department provided testimony at the suppression
hearing. Turner testified that on the afternoon of March 6, 2015, Glenn called to advise him
1
The additional charges of driving with a suspended license and defective brake light
were nol-prossed.
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 237
that he had received reports that someone driving a black Kia Spectra in the area was acting
suspicious. The vehicle was reported to be circling blocks, which Turner said was something
drug dealers sometimes do. Glenn initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle after observing that
one of its brake lights was not working. After driving a couple hundred yards, appellant
stopped in a parking lot. When Glenn approached the vehicle and asked appellant for his
driver’s license, he smelled a very strong odor of marijuana emitting from the vehicle. Glenn
said that the odor gave him probable cause to search the vehicle, so he asked appellant to step
out. Turner arrived on the scene to assist Glenn, and other officers were called for backup
because a crowd of people, including relatives of appellant’s, had gathered in the parking lot.
Glenn testified that he spoke with appellant at the back of the car and handcuffed him to
detain him.
Turner testified that when he arrived at the stop, he looked through the back-
passenger window of appellant’s vehicle and saw a Crown Royal bag that appeared to
contain a bottle of whiskey. Turner asked appellant if the seal had been broken on the
bottle; appellant said it had not and then stated that there was no alcohol in his car. In order
to see what was in the bottle, Turner opened the car door and detected a strong odor of
marijuana. He discovered that the Crown Royal bag contained marijuana packaged in plastic
wrap. When he opened the door, Turner had not been informed by Glenn about the smell
of marijuana or instructed to conduct a search. Turner showed Glenn what he had found,
appellant was arrested, and Glenn then searched the vehicle and seized more drugs and drug
2
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 237
paraphernalia. Turner testified that appellant was handcuffed after the marijuana had been
found. The trial court denied the motion to suppress upon finding the existence of probable
cause and exigent circumstances to support the warrantless search.
In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we conduct a de novo
review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical fact for
clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable
cause, giving due weight to inferences drawn by the trial court and proper deference to the
trial court’s findings. Johnson v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 567, 444 S.W.3d 880. Arkansas
appellate courts defer to the superior position of the trial court to evaluate the credibility of
witnesses at a suppression hearing. Id. We will reverse the denial of a motion to suppress
only if the ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id.
Appellant argues that the officers conducted a pretextual stop in order to search his
vehicle for drugs. He suggests that Deputy Glenn attempted to conceal this fact because he
did not testify about the prior reports of a suspicious vehicle. A pretextual traffic stop,
however, is not unconstitutional. State v. Mancia-Sandoval, 2010 Ark. 134, 361 S.W.3d 835.
As long as the police officer had the proper probable cause to make the traffic stop, the
officer’s ulterior motives will not render the stop unconstitutional. See id. Here, Glenn had
probable cause to believe that appellant had violated the traffic law requiring functioning
brake lights. See Sims v. State, 356 Ark. 507, 157 S.W.3d 530 (2004); Ark. Code Ann. §
27-36-216 (Repl. 2014). Therefore, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional or invalid
3
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 237
about the initial traffic stop.
Appellant next argues that Turner had no probable cause to search the vehicle based
on his observation of the Crown Royal bag and that Glenn’s subsequent search was tainted
by Turner’s illegal search. Although Turner had not yet detected the odor of marijuana
when he initiated the search, probable cause is assessed based on the collective knowledge
of the police, not solely on the knowledge of the officer making the stop or arrest. Jones v.
State, 2011 Ark. App. 683. At the time Turner initiated the search, Glenn had already
decided to search the vehicle based on the odor of marijuana he identified when he asked
appellant for his driver’s license. We have held that the odor of marijuana coming from a
vehicle is sufficient to arouse suspicion and provide probable cause for the search of that
vehicle. Lopez v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 750. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that
probable cause existed for this search.
Appellant also argues that there were no exigent circumstances to warrant the search
because there was no threat of destruction or removal of evidence. We disagree. Arkansas
Rule of Criminal Procedure 14.1(a)(i) (2016) allows for a warrantless search of a readily
movable vehicle that an officer has reasonable cause to believe contains evidence subject to
seizure where the vehicle is in an area open to the public. Because a vehicle is readily
movable by any person, not just the suspect, exigent circumstances allow the vehicle to be
searched at the scene. McDaniel v. State, 337 Ark. 431, 990 S.W.2d 515 (1999). Appellant’s
vehicle was in a parking lot open to the public and was readily movable, especially with his
4
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 237
relatives among the crowd of people that had gathered; no further exigency was required to
search it. See Vega v. State, 56 Ark. App. 145, 939 S.W.2d 322 (1997).
While appellant also points out the discrepancy in the testimony concerning the point
at which he was handcuffed, he cites no authority to support his contention that handcuffing
him prior to the search “would have been illegal” and provides no argument that this would
have rendered the search unconstitutional. We hold that the denial of appellant’s motion to
suppress was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, and we affirm appellant’s
convictions.
Affirmed.
WHITEAKER and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Bill Luppen, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Bailey Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
5