State v. Bass
2013 OK CR 7
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Bass was charged in Case CF-2011-26 with Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (marijuana) and Misdemeanor Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in Sequoyah County.
- Bass moved to quash, suppress, and dismiss on Feb 3, 2011; preliminary hearing held Feb 15, 2011; State amended Count I to Possession with Intent to Distribute.
- Amended Information filed Feb 16, 2011—Count I amended to Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (marijuana).
- Bass filed a new Motion to Quash, Suppress, and Dismiss on Mar 24, 2011; district court granted suppression on Apr 19, 2012 without argument, but did not dismiss the case.
- State appealed the suppression order under 22 O.S. Supp. 2011, § 1058(5); this Court reviews for abuse of discretion.
- This Court reversed the suppression grant and remanded for further proceedings, holding Bass had standing and the search was supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause from the dog alert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bass had standing to challenge the van search | Bass had permission to drive from the renter; challenged standing | Bass lacked standing as unauthorized driver | Bass had standing to challenge the search |
| Whether the stop, detention, and search were reasonable and lawful | Stop/detention supported by reasonable suspicion; Miranda not needed | Suppression proper; not enough basis for detention | Detention supported by reasonable suspicion; search justified by dog alert; suppression reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (standing analysis not just contract terms, focuses on privacy expectancy)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (standing analysis tied to legitimate expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Soto, 988 F.2d 1548 (10th Cir. 1993) (permission to use vehicle creates privacy interest when supported by ownership/possession)
- Parker v. State, 182 S.W.3d 923 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (car renter’s permission can give privacy expectation if circumstances show reasonable expectation)
- United States v. Roper, 918 F.2d 885 (10th Cir. 1990) (unauthorized driver lacking standing absent extraordinary circumstances)
- United States v. Obregon, 748 F.2d 1374 (10th Cir. 1984) (unauthorized driver generally lacks standing)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (framework for legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (S. Ct. 2013) (drug-dog alert can establish probable cause based on totality of circumstances)