State v. Pollard
2013 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 72
Ala. Crim. App.2013Background
- Pollard was a passenger in a vehicle stopped after police received an NPLEX "Meth Check Alert" that Pollard had purchased pseudoephedrine; Officer Rogers observed Pollard in the front passenger seat and ran the vehicle’s tag.
- The run revealed the vehicle was registered to Steve Madden, and Rogers was told Madden had an outstanding warrant; Rogers then initiated a traffic stop.
- Madden (the driver) consented to a vehicle search; officers found items used to manufacture methamphetamine and then advised Pollard of his Miranda rights; Pollard waived and gave a statement.
- Pollard moved to suppress the evidence and statements, arguing the search and seizure stemmed from an unlawful warrantless stop based solely on the computer-generated e-mail alert.
- The circuit court analogized the NPLEX e-mail to an anonymous tip (relying on Ex parte Aaron) and granted the suppression motion. The State appealed.
- On appeal the court reviewed the undisputed facts de novo and reversed the suppression order, holding the stop was justified by the officer’s knowledge of an outstanding warrant for the registered owner plus the NPLEX alert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the investigatory stop was justified by the NPLEX e-mail alone | Pollard: the e-mail is analogous to an anonymous tip and was insufficiently corroborated to create reasonable suspicion | State: NPLEX alert provided suspicion; alternatively, officers also had information about an outstanding warrant for the vehicle’s registered owner | Court: Even if the e-mail were treated like an anonymous tip, the stop was justified on the independent basis that officers learned the registered owner had an outstanding warrant and could stop to investigate |
| Whether the State waived the outstanding-warrant argument by not raising it below | Pollard: the warrant argument was not raised in circuit court and is therefore waived | State: factual predicate (warrant information) was presented at the suppression hearing; appellate de novo review permits consideration of the argument | Court: Considered the argument on appeal (declined to find waiver) and addressed the legal application de novo |
| Whether Ex parte Aaron controls and mandates suppression | Pollard: Aaron requires suppression because the alert was uncorroborated and requested pharmacy confirmation | State: Aaron is distinguishable because here officers had an independent basis (warrant info) to stop the car | Court: Aaron is distinguishable; suppression reversed because of the independent warrant-based justification |
| Whether this opinion decides the legality of the subsequent search | Pollard: suppression sought of evidence obtained after the stop | State: appeals the stop’s validity | Court: The opinion addresses only whether the stop was lawful; it expresses no opinion on the legality of the ensuing search |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Aaron, 913 So.2d 1110 (Ala. 2005) (anonymous Wal‑Mart tip decision applied to pseudoephedrine purchase; tip required corroboration to supply reasonable suspicion)
- Ex parte Shaver, 894 So.2d 781 (Ala. 2004) (stopping a vehicle based solely on an uncorroborated Wal‑Mart telephone tip was insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (an anonymous tip can provide reasonable suspicion if sufficiently corroborated by police investigation)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (authorizes temporary investigatory stops upon reasonable suspicion)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (standard of appellate review for reasonable-suspicion/probable-cause determinations is de novo)