Verenzo Cartrell Green v. State of Mississippi
183 So. 3d 78
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Verenzo Green was seen by sheriff’s deputies near an open-trunk vehicle; on seeing officers he threw down car keys and fled into nearby woods; officers could not catch him.
- The store manager requested the car be towed; police ran the plate, identified Green as the owner, and called for a tow.
- While awaiting the tow, officers used the keys Green had dropped to open the trunk and conducted an inventory search, discovering three handguns atop speakers.
- Green was indicted and convicted on three counts of possession of a weapon by a convicted felon and one count of trafficking stolen firearms; sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive ten-year terms on the possession counts and a concurrent 15-year term for trafficking.
- Green moved to suppress the handgun evidence at trial, arguing the search of the vehicle was unlawful; the trial court denied the motion. He also challenged sufficiency of evidence for the trafficking count on appeal (procedurally barred).
- The majority affirmed: (1) Green abandoned the car (no Fourth Amendment standing), and alternatively (2) the inventory search was permissible under standardized procedures; the sufficiency claim was procedurally barred and, on the merits, unpersuasive. A dissent argued that multiple simultaneous possession convictions violate double jeopardy and should be vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search/seizure of vehicle trunk | Green: search was an illegal warrantless search; evidence should be suppressed | State: Green abandoned vehicle; alternatively search was a proper inventory incident to impoundment | Court: Green abandoned the car when he fled and left keys; alternatively inventory search was authorized and conducted pursuant to standard procedures — suppression denied |
| Standing to challenge search (abandonment) | Green: retained expectation of privacy in vehicle | State: abandonment inferred from throwing keys and fleeing; no expectation of privacy | Court: Abandonment established; no Fourth Amendment protection |
| Inventory-search exception scope | Green: inventory search was a pretext for investigation | State: officers followed department’s standardized inventory procedures to protect property and liability | Court: No showing of bad faith; procedures satisfied inventory-search requirements; search reasonable |
| Sufficiency of evidence for trafficking count | Green: evidence insufficient to support trafficking stolen firearms (raised on appeal but procedurally barred) | State: evidence supported trafficking conviction | Court: Procedurally barred due to failure to renew motion and not raised post-trial; court alternatively found no merit to claim |
| Multiple convictions for simultaneous possession (double jeopardy) | (Raised in dissent) Green: simultaneous possession should be a single offense; multiple convictions violate double jeopardy | State: multiple counts and convictions allowed under statute (not argued below) | Majority: Did not reach the statutory/double-jeopardy issue (procedural bar); Dissent: would reverse and vacate two convictions as plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Edwards, 441 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1971) (leaving keys and fleeing during police pursuit constituted abandonment of vehicle)
- United States v. Quiroz-Hernandez, 48 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 1995) (no standing to challenge search of abandoned property)
- United States v. Williams, 569 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1978) (abandonment inquiry focuses on intent inferred from objective facts)
- United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1973) (all relevant circumstances considered in abandonment analysis)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory-search exception to warrant requirement for impounded vehicles)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventory searches must not be a ruse for general rummaging)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (officer discretion in inventories permissible if guided by standard criteria)
- United States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 1999) (inventory searches reasonable when conducted pursuant to standardized procedures)
- United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328 (5th Cir. 1994) (standardized regulations must limit officer discretion in inventories)
- Shaw v. State, 938 So.2d 853 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Price v. State, 752 So.2d 1070 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (review standards cited)
- Hughes v. State, 90 So.3d 613 (Miss. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission/suppression review)
- People v. Carter, 821 N.E.2d 233 (Ill. 2004) (dissent-cited authority holding simultaneous possession of multiple firearms constitutes a single offense)
- State v. Garris, 663 S.E.2d 340 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (dissent-cited authority construing “any firearm” in favor of single punishment for simultaneous possession)
- Hill v. State, 711 So.2d 1221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (dissent-cited case holding double jeopardy bars multiple convictions for simultaneous possession)