Anderson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-01173-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01173-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-15-2003
Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of controlled substance - Illegal search - Probable cause
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Bridges, J.
Dissent Joined By : Thomas and Myers, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-05-2002
Appealed from: Marion County Circuit Court
Judge: R.I. Prichard, III
Disposition: POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, HABITUAL OFFENDER: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND SUCH SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE REDUCED OR SUSPENDED, NOR SHALL THE DEFENDANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE, PROBATION, OR EARLY WORK RELEASE.
District Attorney: Claiborned McDonal
Case Number: K01-0218P

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Carl Vester Anderson




MORRIS SWEATT



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS  

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: Possession of controlled substance - Illegal search - Probable cause

Summary of the Facts: Carl Anderson was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Anderson argues that the court erred in failing to suppress evidence discovered in an illegal stop, search and seizure. No warrant is needed for a law enforcement officer briefly to detain an individual for questioning. If police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant. Here, the deputy stopped Anderson and asked him to step out of the vehicle. He testified that he could see part of a clear plastic bag protruding from the top of Anderson's pants. He admitted that the plastic bag itself did not cause him to believe that he was in danger because of something indicated by the bag nor could he see what was within the bag until he pulled on Anderson's pants. He admitted that he only thought that the residue he could see on the bag was possibly crack cocaine. Observing the powdery substance itself did not create probable cause. Instead, probable cause to believe that there were drugs in the bag existed only after the search of pulling Anderson's pants away from his body. Therefore, the court should have suppressed the evidence found from the search.


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