Andrew Acie Adams v. State of Mississippi
217 So. 3d 693
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Adams was stopped after double-parking; officers saw suspected synthetic cannabinoids in his Kia and arrested him after he resisted and slipped from cuffs.
- A drug-detecting police dog performed a walk-around of Adams’s other vehicle (a parked Impala); the dog exhibited behavior near the rear driver’s side where the bumper meets the quarter panel.
- Officers inspected the gap between bumper and quarter panel and the vehicle’s interior, then obtained a warrant based on an affidavit stating the dog alerted on the rear quarter panel.
- The subsequent search of the Impala uncovered a plastic bag of marijuana on the rear driver’s floorboard; Adams was charged and convicted of possession of 250+ grams of marijuana and sentenced as a habitual offender to 16 years.
- On appeal Adams argued the warrant affidavit falsely stated the dog alerted on the quarter panel (rather than the bumper), rendering the warrant unsupported by probable cause; he also argued the affidavit failed to attest to the dog’s certifications.
Issues
| Issue | Adams’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adams made a proper Franks-type showing that the affidavit knowingly or recklessly included a false statement about the dog’s alert location | The dash-cam shows the dog alerted the bumper (a discrete exterior compartment) not the quarter panel; officers misdescribed the alert so affidavit was false and material | Adams failed to make the required preliminary showing; video is ambiguous and handler testified dog alerted at seam where quarter panel meets bumper; alert supported probable cause | Procedurally barred for lack of specific suppression challenge at hearing; on merits, Adams failed to prove falsity or materiality and thus failed Franks showing — claim rejected |
| Whether a warrant was required or, if affidavit flawed, the search could still be upheld under automobile exception | Warrant insufficient if alert only concerned bumper; limited probable cause would not support interior search | Even if affidavit omitted certification or misdescribed location, automobile exception and totality of circumstances support search; dog was certified and training discussed at trial | Claim that affidavit omitted certification was procedurally barred; irrespective, search valid under automobile exception and totality of circumstances |
| Whether the alleged misdescription of the alert was material to probable cause | Misdescription meant officers should have discounted the alert and lacked probable cause for interior search | Probable cause is totality-of-circumstances; an alert to bumper still contributes to probable cause to search interior; no evidence dog pinpoints exact location with assumed precision | Not material — even if alert were to bumper, it would still factor into totality and probable cause existed |
| Adequacy of suppression hearing for developing the dog-alert facts | Video shows clear contradiction to affidavit; trial court should have made findings | Adams did not present evidence or elicit a detailed ruling below; stood on form motion so issue not developed | Failure to develop below procedurally barred the claim; trial court’s general finding that warrant was legally issued affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Petti v. State, 666 So. 2d 754 (Miss. 1995) (Franks-type burden and requirements for proving false affidavit statements)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (procedures and substantial preliminary showing required to attack warrant affidavit)
- Townsend v. State, 681 So. 2d 497 (Miss. 1996) (automobile exception can validate warrantless vehicle searches when probable cause exists)
- Williams v. State, 994 So. 2d 821 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (procedural default for issues not raised/sufficiently developed at suppression hearing)
- Millsap v. State, 767 So. 2d 286 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (warrant limits should reflect specific probable cause to a discrete vehicle area)
- Batiste v. State, 121 So. 3d 808 (Miss. 2013) (probable cause evaluated under the totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir. 1993) (dog alerts to exterior vehicle locations can contribute to probable cause to search the interior)