Loveless v. City of Booneville


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KM-02017-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-KM-02017-COA ; 2005-CT-02017-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-05-2007
Opinion Author: BARNES, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: DUI - Double jeopardy - Probable cause - Jurisdiction
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2005
Appealed from: PRENTISS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Sharion R. Aycock
Disposition: CONVICTED OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE FIRST OFFENSE, CARELESS DRIVING, POSSESSION OF BEER IN A DRY COUNTY, AND POSSESSION OF WHISKEY, AND SENTENCED TO TWO DAYS IN JAIL WITH TWO DAYS SUSPENDED AND $1,550 IN FINES
Case Number: CR03-296

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: ANTHONY RYAN LOVELESS




TOMMY DEXTER CADLE KENNETH EUGENE FLOYD



 

Appellee: CITY OF BOONEVILLE, MISSISSIPPI WILLIAM WAYNE SMITH  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: DUI - Double jeopardy - Probable cause - Jurisdiction

Summary of the Facts: Anthony Loveless was convicted for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, possession of beer in a dry county, possession of whiskey, and careless driving. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Double jeopardy Loveless argues that he was placed in double jeopardy when the court resumed his trial following an extended continuance. After jeopardy attaches in a criminal proceeding, if a mistrial is granted upon the court’s own motion, or upon the state’s motion, a second trial is barred because of double jeopardy unless there was a manifest necessity for the mistrial, taking into consideration all the circumstances. Since Loveless’s trial resumed before the same trier of fact and was not a completely new beginning, Loveless was not subjected to double jeopardy. While jeopardy attached at the time the officer was sworn and began giving testimony on March 5, 2004, the resumption of Loveless’s trial on June 20, 2005, was merely a continuance of the March 5, 2004, proceeding and, therefore, did not constitute double jeopardy. Issue 2: Probable cause Loveless argues that, since the officer could not cite the noise ordinance that Loveless was allegedly violating on the morning in question, and could not recite the elements which constitute a violation of the ordinance, there was no probable cause to make a traffic stop which led to Loveless’s arrest. It is impractical to expect an officer of the law to possess the level of knowledge which Loveless claims, at least implicitly, that an officer should have with respect to every law an officer is charged with enforcing. Such a level of knowledge is not required to establish probable cause for an arrest or a traffic stop. Even if the officer’s belief that Loveless was violating a noise ordinance was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or fact, such mistake does not necessarily render the probable cause defective. As long as the officer’s probable cause was based on good faith and a reasonable basis, it is valid. Even if the officer’s suspicion of a noise ordinance violation was not sufficient to establish probable cause, Loveless’s careless driving evidenced by his crossing the center line of the road clearly established probable cause sufficient for the officer to initiate the traffic stop. Issue 3: Jurisdiction Loveless argues that the uniform traffic ticket charging him with driving under the influence, first offense, as well as the affidavits charging him with possession of beer and possession of whiskey were defective and therefore, the municipal court did not have jurisdiction with respect to these charges. The errors or omissions contained in the uniform DUI citation and possession affidavits do not render these documents defective. Therefore, jurisdiction was properly exercised.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court