246 So. 3d 77
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Officer Mark Gore stopped a vehicle after observing both driver and passenger allegedly not wearing seatbelts; Nowell was the front passenger.
- While approaching, Gore observed Nowell holding a glass pipe and saw him put it down his pants; several items (a pouch with a plastic bag of crystal-like substance and the pipe) fell from Nowell’s pant leg and were seized.
- After Nowell was secured, Gore saw a second pouch in plain view on/near the passenger seat/center console and seized it; that pouch contained an electronic scale and another bag with similar crystals.
- Forensic testing showed the two pouches together contained 8.620 grams of methamphetamine; Nowell was indicted and tried for possession of at least two but less than ten grams.
- Nowell moved to suppress the second pouch and his oral statement (claiming he was under the influence when he waived Miranda); the trial court denied both suppression motions.
- Nowell appealed, arguing the second-pouch seizure was illegal because the vehicle wasn’t his and the search was not incident to arrest; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Nowell's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of seizure of second pouch found inside vehicle | Seizure was unlawful because vehicle was not his and he was already under arrest; no probable cause for that pouch | Second pouch was in plain view inside the vehicle and seizure was lawful; traffic stop and initial seizure lawful | Court: Second pouch was lawfully seized in plain view; no manifest error in denial of suppression |
| Standing to challenge search of vehicle | Nowell contends evidence from second pouch should be suppressed despite not owning car | State: Nowell lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle he did not own or regularly use | Court: Nowell lacked standing because he had no possessory interest or reasonable expectation of privacy in the car |
| Voluntariness and admissibility of oral statement | Nowell claimed he was under influence and could not validly waive Miranda | State: Agent Dotter testified waiver was knowing and voluntary; no signs of incapacitation or coercion | Court: Totality of circumstances supports a knowing, voluntary waiver; statement admissible |
| Validity of traffic stop | Nowell disputed initial facts about seatbelt use at suppression hearing | State: Officer observed seatbelt violation giving probable cause to stop | Court: Stop was constitutionally reasonable based on officer's testimony of seatbelt violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. State, 226 So.3d 1251 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing denial of suppression motion)
- Austin v. State, 72 So.3d 565 (Miss. Ct. App.) (seatbelt violations can supply probable cause for traffic stop)
- May v. State, 222 So.3d 1074 (Miss. Ct. App.) (probable cause and totality-of-circumstances discussion)
- Walker v. State, 962 So.2d 39 (Miss. Ct. App.) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; passenger lacking ownership cannot complain about vehicle search)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court) (traffic stop reasonable when officer has probable cause of traffic violation)
- Powell v. State, 824 So.2d 661 (Miss. Ct. App.) (passenger who does not own vehicle cannot challenge its search)
- Chesney v. State, 165 So.3d 498 (Miss. Ct. App.) (two-part standing inquiry for expectation of privacy)
- Bankston v. State, 4 So.3d 377 (Miss. Ct. App.) (framework for subjective and objective expectation of privacy)
- Head v. State, 136 So.2d 619 (Miss.) (defendants not in control/ownership of automobile cannot raise constitutional challenge to its search)