200 So. 3d 1193
Ala. Crim. App.2015Background
- DEA used a confidential informant to deliver a suitcase containing 15 kg of cocaine at a Flying J truck stop; federal and local officers set up surveillance.
- The suitcase was placed in the trunk of a black Maxima; agents tracked the vehicle by air and ground and followed it to a traffic stop by Birmingham police.
- Officer Turner stopped the Maxima for following too closely, issued a citation to Derrick Breeding (driver), and requested a canine unit after Breeding declined consent to search.
- A police canine performed an open-air sniff, indicated drugs at the driver’s door and rear, and officers then searched the car and recovered the suitcase of cocaine from the trunk.
- The circuit court initially denied a suppression motion, but on renewed motion later suppressed the evidence finding no probable cause, no uninterrupted surveillance to establish a controlled-delivery exception, and no evidence Breeding exercised dominion over the drugs.
- On appeal the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the collective knowledge of DEA and local officers—surveillance showing the controlled delivery and immediate tracking—established probable cause under the automobile exception and thus the suppression order was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had probable cause to search the Maxima under the automobile exception | State: collective knowledge (DEA + local officers) that suitcase with cocaine was placed in the trunk and was continuously tracked gave probable cause to search | Breeding: no proof he had dominion or involvement; surveillance gap and lack of uninterrupted monitoring make controlled-delivery theory inapplicable; no probable cause | Held: Reversed — facts showed officers were certain cocaine was in the trunk; probable cause existed and justified the search under the automobile exception |
| Whether continued detention after citation and before K-9 arrival was lawful | State: knowledge of drugs and ongoing investigation justified continued detention and K-9 sniff | Breeding: once citation returned, detention exceeded traffic-stop scope and lacked reasonable suspicion | Held: Court treated collective knowledge as supplying lawful basis to continue and arrest; search upheld (search supported by probable cause) |
| Applicability of the controlled-delivery doctrine (Illinois v. Andreas) to justify warrantless search | State: described facts as a controlled delivery supporting investigation and search | Breeding: Andreas requires showing recipient’s dominion and continuous surveillance; State did not prove these elements | Held: Court found Andreas inapt to the central question (probable cause); even if considered, undisputed surveillance facts supported probable cause and Andreas was unnecessary |
| Validity of canine open-air sniff and its role in establishing probable cause | State: canine’s positive indication reinforced probable cause already present | Breeding: reliance on sniff after an allegedly unlawful extended detention is improper | Held: Canine’s alert only enhanced existing probable cause; search was lawful given collective knowledge and tracking evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983) (discusses controlled deliveries and expectation of privacy in previously searched containers)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits searches incident to arrest of vehicle occupants)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (1996) (automobile exception permits vehicle searches on probable cause alone)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (standards for investigatory stops and temporary detentions)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause deals with practical probabilities, not technical proof)
- Ex parte Boyd, 542 So.2d 1276 (Ala. 1989) (collective knowledge principle for assessing probable cause)