Johnson v. State
2013 OK CR 12
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- William Henry Johnson was convicted by a jury in Beckham County for trafficking in illegal drugs; sentence: 8 years imprisonment and $50,000 fine. Appellant appealed the conviction.
- Officer Buckley observed Johnson earlier in a motel lot, then later watched Johnson’s Chrysler make left turns without signaling; Buckley stopped the vehicle for the traffic violation.
- At the stop Johnson was nervous; Buckley ran a license check, called for a more experienced officer (Agent Goodman, a K-9 handler), and prepared a warning citation; after returning Johnson’s documents Buckley asked a few consensual questions.
- During the consensual encounter Agent Goodman’s drug dog alerted to the trunk; search produced 95 pounds of marijuana, vacuum-sealed luggage, and a receipt linking purchases to Johnson.
- Johnson moved to suppress evidence on grounds the initial stop was unlawful and the detention was unlawfully prolonged; he also contended prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The trial court denied suppression and overruled the mistrial request; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of stop for failure to signal | Stop valid; statute requires signaling when other traffic may be affected; Buckley observed other cars and had probable cause | No signal was legally required under the circumstances so stop was unconstitutional | Court affirmed stop: reasonable possibility other traffic may be affected; traffic violation provided probable cause to stop |
| Length/scope of detention | Additional minutes to call a more experienced officer and await dispatch checks were reasonable and related to the stop’s purpose | Officers prolonged detention beyond purpose of stop without articulable suspicion, violating Fourth Amendment | Court held delay was minimal and served legitimate purpose; duration reasonable under the circumstances |
| Use of consensual encounter leading to K-9 sniff/search | After returning documents the subsequent questions were consensual; K-9 sniff was lawful after consent | Any further detention or deployment of K-9 was illegal because the stop should have ended earlier | Court treated the post-warning exchange as consensual and admissible; evidence from dog/search upheld |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / mistrial request | Any improper statements were promptly objected to and the court sustained/struck them, curing error | Misstatements were highly prejudicial and warranted mistrial | Court found no reversible prosecutorial misconduct; objections and rulings cured any error |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. State, 168 P.3d 1139 (2007) (review of suppression ruling for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Goins, 84 P.3d 767 (2004) (standard for reviewing traffic-stop suppression rulings)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic-stop probable cause standard justified by observed violation)
- Dufries v. State, 133 P.3d 887 (2006) (traffic violation can supply probable cause for stop)
- United States v. Burciaga, 687 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir.) (interpreting "may be affected" language to require a reasonable possibility other traffic may be affected)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (brief additional detention to await arrival of more experienced officer may be permissible)