Opinion

Neal v. State

  • 696 P.2d 508
  • 1985 OK CR 28
  • 1985 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 237
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Filed
Mar 4, 1985
Status
Published
Author
Bussey
On the bench
Bussey, Parks, Brett
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 81.6%

warrantless search of contents of medicine bottle taken from defendant’s coat jacket was unlawful, since officer had no reason to suspect that defendant was armed or dangerous

How later courts described this case

  • warrantless search of contents of medicine bottle taken from defendant’s coat jacket was unlawful, since officer had no reason to suspect that defendant was armed or dangerous

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*509

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Appellant, Jessie Neal, was convicted in the District Court of Comanche County in Case No. CRF-83-759 of Unlawful Possession of Phencyclidine and sentenced to four. (4) years imprisonment, and he appeals.

Briefly stated the facts are that on November 17, 1983, Officer Harris, a Lawton Police Officer, after receiving an anonymous tip, procured a search warrant to search an automobile owned by Gene Block. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on the same day, Officer Harris, who was parked in an unmarked vehicle, had Mr. Block’s automobile under surveillance as it was parked at a residence in Lawton. When the vehicle left the house, Officer Harris radioed ahead for Officer Carden to stop the 1976 white over blue Cadillac. When the vehicle stopped, Officer Carden directed the occupants to get out of the car since the windows on the side and the back of the automobile were darkly tinted. The occupants of the car remained inside the car for approximately one (1) minute, and then the driver emerged from the vehicle and appellant emerged from the vehicle on the passenger side and proceeded to walk toward his house which was across the street from the vehicle. When the officer ordered appellant to stop, he returned to the stopped vehicle, and at that point, Officer Harris arrived at the scene. Officer Harris testified that as he arrived at the location, he observed the appellant move his hands suddenly toward his pocket. He further testified that, as a precautionary measure, he drew his service revolver and eased up behind appellant and initiated a pat-down search.

Officer Harris then testified that he put his gun back into the holster and proceeded to search the appellant, but that as he touched the right side of his coat pocket, he immediately threw his hand down and clamped his hand over the top of the officer’s hand. Therefore, appellant was forcibly restrained and the search was continued. Officer Harris stated that he was unable to determine the contents of appellant’s jacket so he removed several items from appellant’s coat pocket: a cigarette lighter, a pocket knife, a notebook, various papers, and a brown medicine bottle. After removing the contents from appellant’s jacket, Officer Harris opened the medicine bottle and smelled the contents and determined that it was phencyclidine. Appellant was arrested, and a laboratory analysis proved that the substance was phencycli-dine.

Appellant raises two assignments of error on appeal only one of which we deem necessary to consider in this opinion.

I

In his first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court committed fundamental error by not sustaining appellant’s motion to suppress the illegally seized evidence. We agree.

Although the right to initially stop appellant was questionable in the instant case, we are of the opinion that once the officer ascertained that appellant had no weapons on his person, his right to search him terminated and the warrantless search of the contents of the bottle was unlawful, since the search of the bottle was not “an intrusion reasonably designed to discover instruments of assault” as required by

Terry v. Ohio,

392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

Since the evidence of the illegal search was improperly admitted into evidence, this case is REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS.

PARKS, P.J., and BRETT, J., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.