*1 2009 OK 22CR Oklahoma, Appellant
The STATE of Lindsay Marie
Candice CROWLEY & Hall, Appellees.
Anne S-2008-109,
Nos. S-2008-110. Appeals
Court of Criminal of Oklahoma.
July24,2009. Higgins, Claremore, OK, R.
William attor- ney appeal. for Defendants at trial and Haynes, Gene Attorney, District Sean McConnell, Assistant Attorney, District Claremore, OK, Attorneys for State at trial appeal. *2 100 desig general, of this statute
OPINION more section troopers peace offi Highway Patrol nates CHAPEL, Judge. cers, of search and in them the vests Lindsay seizure, Crowley and erime investigate and to Marie T1 Candice Furnishing charged with Anne Hall were of Oklahoma.3 enforce the criminal laws of in violation Beverages to Minors Alcoholic twenty-two enumerates second section The 587(A)(1), in the District $ 37 authorized to troopers duties are specific Nos. CF-O06- County, power Case "to ar Rogers Among of them is the perform. Court Preliminary joint After a and CF-O06-78.1 writ, rule, process any 69 order or without rest over violat Crowley by and Hall were bound them in the act of Hearing person detected Suppress Attorney The They ing any filed a Motion law of the state."4 trial. for General, responded, interpret the Support, the State asked and Brief in 15, 2007. statute, on March hearing a was held conclud granted troopers authority for January provides the limited ed that filed By written Order investigations, Steidley troopers the to initiate Dwayne sustained Honorable J. they may general criminal charges against initiate Suppress and the Motion to request of another law investigations at the The State Crowley Hall were dismissed. authority which would have the appeals.2 enforcement investigation itself.5 power to conduct the Trooper McMillan € 2 Patrol go to Campus Police to by Opinion, asked the Catoosa The General City of Catoosa Court, a house located fails to binding not on this which is drinking. 2-117(B)(2) underage investigate report § a of lan take into account music, house, heard loud quoted language appears He drove guage above. This cars, and saw two women parked Highway Patrol saw several to authorize Oklahoma porch age sitting committing on troopers persons of indeterminate to arrest holding cups. point they At that he had observed witness. When faced crimes themselves specific asked the conflicting general McMillan statuto no crimes with help. Campus will, possible, if reconcile ry language Catoosa we County Sheriffs Rogers give them each effect.6 Police officers joined specific pro him at deputies keeping principle, with this 2-117(B)(2) Through § windows the officers must control over house. visions drinking from an juvenile responsibility general saw at least one authorization 2-117(A). open liquor specific lan opaque cup, $ and saw bottles described The ultimately initial made authorizes Oklahoma guage the house. McMillan Crowley persons and Hall were entry troopers to arrest into the house. Patrol crimes, committing even if those they arrested. see general in nature and not con crimes are Crowley and Hall claimed relating to enforcement of the laws fined to jurisdiction authority or McMillan had no of vehicles on the operation and use them, investigate crimes or arrest these system. highway state that McMil argues appeal on while the State {5 However, plain language of the authority. This an issue lan have that did jurisdiction of Okla authority to initi- impression. of first The does not confer statute governed ate troopers is a has investigation into crimes homa first, § 2-117. The significant by 47 yet There is witnessed. 2117(B)(2). 0.$.Supp.2005, 4. 47 separately. appeals As the were filed 1. These error, are the facts and circumstances claim of same, Crowley represented and Hall Lang- by: Director DeWade Question Submitted 5. been combined counsel, the same the cases have Investigation, 2006 ley, Bureau Oklahoma State appeal. on 21, 2006). {14, AG OK 0.$.2001, § 2. 1089.1. 182P.3d King 2008OKCR 2-117(A). 0.$8.8upp.2005, § 3. 47 difference between to arrest and T8 The trial court's sup decision to investigate Legis- crimes. The press the information gave McMillan clearly lature was aware of this distinction. Police was correct. this, 2-117 grant- reflects Trooper McMillan was not authorized under *3 ing troopers power to investigate spe- some Highway Patrol investigate statute to type cific crimes and enforce others. Had the this of crime. The Campus Legislature §in wished to au- Police had no interdepartmental agreement troopers crimes, thorize investigate to it for assistance with the Highway Oklahoma explicitly, could have done so Patrol, did authority had no investigate to not, other of the statute. As it did the crime themselves. might argue One we conclude that Legislature did that, given prior McMillan's knowledge of the intend to confer on Highway Oklahoma Pa- area and the information from the Catoosa troopers trol the broad investigate to Police, probable he had cause to any crime. believe a crime in That legal question irrelevant to the of whether 16 The General conclud Trooper McMillan authority had the to act on ed that a could a initiate criminal that information and investigate possible a investigation request at the of another law crime. He did not. agency jurisdiction enforcement with the to T9 We do not hold Opinion that a investigate the crime in question.7 We Highway Patrol Trooper may ju- never have However, agree. the trial court found and risdiction to investigate crimes under similar dispute there seems to be no that the Catoo- that, circumstances. We hold under leg- sa Police had no in stands, islation as it currently troopers do terdepartmental agreement for assistance authority. not have that Legislature has with the Highway Oklahoma Patrol. The grant authority by such statute. that, trial court also found under the terms of that, We hold in the absence statutory of a agreement City between the of Catoosa and grant of authority, Trooper McMillan did not Campus Police, the Catoosa the latter had no have authority investigate the crimes jurisdiction over the location. That conclu charged under the circumstances of this case. only sion is the interpretation reasonable agreement's language. That Decision case, agrees this Court with the trial court's ruling € 10 The of the District Court sus- conclusion that the Catoosa taining the Suppress Defendants' Motion to authority had no investigate this criminal 8.15, is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule activity with, begin authority and had no Rules the Oklahoma Court Criminal Trooper to ask investigate McMillan to it for Appeals, 22, Ch.18, (2009), Title App. them. Consequently Trooper McMillan MANDATE is ORDERED upon issued rely could not request on the from the Cam delivery filing of this decision. pus authority to initiate this erimi- investigation. nal JOHNSON, P.J., LEWIS, J., C. coneur. T7 authority McMillan had no investigation
initiate an
in this case. He
JOHNSON, V.P.J.,
A.
LUMPKIN, J.,
began investigating report
a
long
a crime
dissent.
before he
anything
saw
to indicate that a
LUMPKIN, Judge, Dissent.
might
occurring;
be
he could not con-
firm
teenagers
drinking
were
alcohol at
11 I dissent
to the sustaining of the De
party
until officers entered the house.
fendant's
Suppress.
Motion to
pointed
As
significantly beyond
This is
scope
any
majority
out
opinion, 47 O.S.Supp.
2-117(B)(2).
powers
authorized
§ 2-117
sets out the
and duties
Question
by:
Submitted
2006).
Director DeWade
1 4 I majority's also with the con to investigate clusion that because the and to enforce the state, criminal laws of this Police had interdepartmental no Trooper McMillan had legal authority agreement for assistance with the Oklahoma investigation initiate the report into the of an Patrol, Trooper MeMillan could not underage drinking party at the defendant's rely request on from the However, home. majority based on the opin- authority to investigation initiate the analysis, ion Trooper MeMillen would not beyond juris therefore the acted his authority have had the to act even if the diction. Even if lim was reported information to him was that a wom- asking only ited to the Catoosa Police De an very assaulted at that moment partment for specified assistance and had no empowered because he is not initiate an to ask the Oklahoma Pa investigation party based on third trol for informa- agreement assistance based on its *5 tion. That logical me, does not seem Schools, with the Catoosa nor Public there is no does it seem to be the completely Legisla- reason to intent of the throw out the informa ture. private Even a tion received from the citizen has to act in Trooper McMillan. The information situation. See received So, why from the doesn't a Highway Police is the same Trooper? received from a certainly known informant. This decision hard to McMillan testified he received information harmonize with our recent decision in State from Kieffer-Roden, Police that an underage 2009 OK CR 208 P.3d drinking party process Crowley at the where we held that a sheriff's failure to comply 0.98.8upp.2005, 548, with 19 residence. McMillan testified he was famil iar having with the residence previ received appointment deputies of his did not deprive underage ous call-ins about drinking parties ability them of the to make a citizen's arrest occurring addition, at the residence. he an juve observed individual he knew to be a upon above, T5 Based ruling drinking nile in the kitchen from one of the trial sustaining court the defendants' motion Styrofoam cups being used group, suppress should be reversed and the case together with beer cans liquor bottles remanded to the District Court for further plain view. This information was sufficient proceedings. provide probable with cause that a inwas Mollett v. T6 I am authorized to Judge state that 28, 114, 1997 OK CR 939 P.2d joins Arlene Johnson writing. ("[the probable existence of cause is a com mon sense requiring standard facts sufficient
to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the
belief that an offensehas or is commit
ted"). Mikell, See also United States v. (lith Cir.1996) F.3d ("[plrobable when,
cause exists totality under the