State v. Knox, 201 So. 3d 1213

Background

Officer Wilson stopped Teddy Lee Knox for improper lane use on I-59; Wilson issued a warning citation and told Knox he was free to go but continued questioning.
Officer Blackwell (drug task force) arrived with a drug-detection dog; Knox refused consent to search and the dog performed an exterior sniff that alerted to marijuana.
Police searched the vehicle, seized over 2.2 pounds of marijuana, and charged Knox with drug offenses; Knox moved to suppress the evidence.
The DeKalb Circuit Court granted the motion, finding the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Knox beyond issuance of the citation.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed on a ground the State raised for the first time on appeal: that Knox was not detained at the time of the canine sniff.
The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by considering a new legal issue on appeal (conflict with Ex parte Jenkins and issue-preservation doctrine).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Knox)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Were officers justified in detaining Knox beyond the traffic citation (reasonable suspicion)?	No — nine factors cited did not create reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop.	(Below-court focus) State did not rely on this new theory below; on appeal argued detention was unlawful prolongation lacking reasonable suspicion.	Circuit court found no reasonable suspicion; appellate courts did not resolve on this ground due to preservation issue; remanded for further proceedings.
May the State raise for the first time on appeal that Knox was not detained at the time of the dog sniff?	N/A (Knox contended issue was not preserved).	Yes — Court of Criminal Appeals treated it as an argument based on facts squarely presented below, so reviewable on de novo grounds.	No — Alabama Supreme Court held this was a new legal question and not preserved; appellate court erred in deciding it.
Does Ex parte Jenkins permit raising a new theory on appeal as an "additional precise reason"?	Jenkins limits new appellate arguments to additional reasons supporting issues actually decided below.	State/CCA relied on a broad reading (and Pollard) that de novo review allows new arguments based on facts presented below.	Jenkins does not allow a new legal theory on appeal; additional reasons must support a theory presented to the trial court.
Was Knox deprived of opportunity to present evidence on the absence-of-detention theory?	Yes — State’s failure to raise the theory below likely prevented Knox from presenting testimony on whether he felt free to leave or whether there was a showing of authority.	State argued facts were in the record; consent to remain was undisputed.	Majority: deprivation of opportunity to respond is a preservation problem; remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Jenkins, 26 So.3d 464 (Ala. 2009) (allows additional precise reasons on appeal only to support issues presented below)
Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So.2d 1365 (Ala. 1994) (issue-preservation rule that appellate review is limited to issues raised below)
State v. Pollard, 160 So.3d 826 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (Court of Criminal Appeals’ treatment of de novo review and issue preservation discussed below)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (test for whether a person feels free to leave during a police encounter)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (canine sniff at a lawful stop is not a Fourth Amendment search unless the stop is unreasonably prolonged)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (narcotics-detection dog sniff is not a search under the Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1984) (Fourth Amendment limits on searches and seizures after investigatory detention)