JOINT APPENDIX

Alabama v. White

Case History

DATE	PROCEEDINGS
CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
ALABAMA
July 6, 1987 -	Respondent is indicted by the
	Grand Jury of Montgomery
	County, Alabama
July 13, 1987 -	Respondent waives arraignment

	and pleads not guilty.
July 14, 1987 -	Respondent files motion to
	suppress.
August 26, 1987 -	Motion to Suppress denied.
September 4, 1987 -	Respondent pleads guilty, reser-
	ving the right to appeal the rul-
	ing on the motion to suppress.

September 18, 1987 -	Respondent is sentenced to two
	years imprisonment, the same
	being suspended in lieu of two
	years supervised probation.
October 28, 1987 -	Respondent files notice of
	appeal.
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

April 28, 1989 -	The Court of Criminal Appeals
	of Alabama reverses and ren-
	ders the Respondent's convic-
	tion and sentence with an
	opinion. [The same is reported
	as White v. State, 550 So.2d 1074
	(Ala. Crim. App, 1989)] The said
	opinion is submitted as Appen-
	dix "A" to the Petition.

June 16, 1989 -	The Court of Criminal Appeals
	of Alabama denies rehearing of
	the above decision.
ALABAMA SUPREME COURT
September 12, 1989 -	The Supreme Court of Alabama
	denies certiorari, declining to
	review the decision of the Court

of Appeals, without opinion.

[This order is reported as Ex

parte State; In re: White v. State,

550 So.2d 1081 (Ala, 1989)] A

dissenting opinion in said case

is submitted as Appendix "B" to

the Petition.

Motion to Suppress

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FOUND IN SEARCH

(R-47) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

STATE OF ALABAMA vs. VANESSA ROSE WHITE

CASE NO. CC-87-1153-PR

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

(Filed July 14, 1987)

COMES NOW the Defendant by and through her attorney of record, Dennis R. Pierson, who moves this Court to suppress the following evidence which may be offered by the State at trial, prohibiting the State from introducing, referring to, eliciting testimony as to, or making any other use of the following:

1. Any and all statements, whether written or oral, made by the Defendant to any law enforcement personnel or their agents, whether public or private.

2. The results of any lineups, whether through the personal appearance of the Defendant, or through photographic or other means, procured by the State or any of its law enforcement agencies in an impermissibly suggestive manner.

3. All identification of the Defendant which is the result of said lineup.

4. The results of any scientific tests or analyses, studies, or other procedures performed to find any physical evidence related to this cause.

5. Any personal property as physical evidence located on the Defendant's person, or on premises occupied or under the control of the Defendant.

(R-48) As grounds therefore, the Defendant states the above items were taken in violation of his constitutional rights especially those prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, the right not to have an attorney present at certain times, the right not to incriminate himself, and the right to due process under the law. The Defendant respectfully requests a hearing on these matters.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dennis R. Pierson

DENNIS R. PIERSON,

Attorney for Defendant

OF COUNSEL:

Hearing on the Motion to Suppress

TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS

(R-1) IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

STATE OF ALABAMA, PLAINTIFF, VS. VANNESA ROSE WHITE, DEFENDANT.

CC-87-1153

INDEX

DESCRIPTION

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

PAGE NUMBERS 3-30

(R-2)IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

STATE OF ALABAMMh0LAINTIFF, VS. VANNESA ROSE WHITE, DEFENDANT.

CC-87-1153

* * *

Whereupon the following proceedings occurred on September 1st, 4th *, and 18th *, 1987 before the Honorable Charles Price, Circuit Court Judge, Montgomery County, Alabama.

* Not included in this appendix.

* * *

APPEARANCES

For the state:

Mr. Alec Spoon

[Assistant District Attorney]

For the defendant:

Mr. Dennis Pierson

[Attorney At Law]

(R-3)(Whereupon, the following suppression hearing occurred on September 1, 1987:)

The Court: State versus Vannesa White. This is a motion to suppress.

B. H. DAVIS

Having been called as a witness was duly sworn to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, took the stand, and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

(By Mr. Spoon:)

Q. State your name for the record, please, sir.

A. Corporal B. H. Davis.

Q. How are you employed?

A. Montgomery Police Department.

Q. How long have you been so employed?

A. About seven and half years.

Q. On April 22nd of this year, in what capacity were you working with the Police Department?

A. I was working with the Narcotics Bureau.

Q. On that date, did you have occasion to receive an anonymous phone call?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was the substance of that phone call?

(R-4) A. A concerned citizen called stating - the subject stated that Vannesa White would be leaving a particular place at a particular time in a particular vehicle going to a particular location and she would be in possession of a quantity of a controlled substance, specifically cocaine.

Q. Specifically, from what location would she be leaving?

A. She would be leaving 235-c Lynwood Terrace Apartments.

Q. What type of vehicle would she be driving?

A. A brown Plymouth station wagon with the right tail light lens broken.

Q. After you received that phone what call, what, if anything, did you do?

A. I got with Corporal P.A. Reynolds. He was my partner for this particular day. We went to the vicinity of Lynwood Apartments, and I assumed a position where we could keep the apartment, the 235 Building under surveillance.

Q. Did you see the defendant leave from that apartment?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. Is that person that you saw leave from 235-c Lynwood Terrace Apartments in court today?

(R-5) A. Yes, she is.

Q. Would you point her out to the court?

A. (Pointing to defendant.)

Mr. Spoon: Let the record reflect that the officer has identified the defendant.

(Contd By Mr. Spoon:)

Q. Had you known Vannesa White prior to this date?

A. I haven't.

Q. What did you do after you saw her leave? First of all, what did she do when she left the apartment?

A. She left the 235 Building, got into the brown Plymouth station wagon, and left the area.

Q. Had you seen the brown Plymouth station wagon prior to her leaving the apartment?

A. When we first arrived on the scene, we observed that station wagon in front of the 235 Building.

Q. Did it in fact have a broken out right tail light?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. Is that the vehicle she got in?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. What did she do after she got in the vehicle?

A. She drove out to Normanbridge Road and took the most direct route that she could towards Dobey's Motel Court which was supposedly her destination.

(R-6) Q. Where is Lynwood Terrace Apartments?

A. Normanbridge Road across from Normandale Shopping Center.

Q. What route of travel did she go?

A. South on Normanbridge Road, West on the Southern Boulevard, North on Mobile Highway.

Q. So she came out - turned onto Normanbridge Road, went down towards the bypass, turned right on the bypass, and went out towards the Mobile Road, and then turned right on Mobile Road?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Dobey's Motel was the location which you had been informed of?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That sits on the right hand side of Mobile Road as you are going towards town on Mobile; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. As she got out to Mobile Road, what did you then do, if anything?

A. We had a patrol unit stop the vehicle.

Q. Who was in that patrol unit?

A. Two patrol officers. T. H. Simmons, and V. D. McMillon.

Q. How did you have them stop the vehicle?

(R-7) A. Corporal Reynolds contacted them by radio.

Q. Had they been prepositioned in anticipation of this vehicle coming?

A. We told him we were following a vehicle and the route it was taking for them to get in the proper position to make the stop.

Q. So, they were waiting for the vehicle, in essence?

A. Correct.

Q. How far behind the subject's vehicle were you at this time?

A. Varying distances. At the time the patrol unit stopped her? Is that what you are referring to?

Q. From the time you turned onto Mobile Road?

A. Several car lengths.

Q. But did you have the car in view the whole time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. From the time that the defendant pulled or got into the car at Lynwood Terrace Apartments until the time that the car was pulled over by the patrol units, did you have constant eye contact with the car?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. Did anybody else get into the vehicle?

A. No one else.

Q. Let's go back a minute. When Vannesa Rose White (R-8) exited the 235-C Lynwood Apartment and got in that vehicle, did she have anything in her hands?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. She got in the vehicle and she went up Mobile Road and y'all pulled her over?

A. That's correct.

Q. What did you then do, if anything?

A. I approached the driver's side of the vehicle and identified myself and asked her to step to the rear of the vehicle.

Q. Did she do that?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. At the time that she exited the vehicle, did you notice anything inside of the vehicle?

A. It was full of clothes. It looked like she was in the process of moving.

Q. When you got to the back of the vehicle, did you have any conversation with her?

A. I advised her the reason we had stopped the vehicle and asked her if we could look for a controlled substance, cocaine, that we suspected that she was carrying in the vehicle.

Q. What was her response?

A. She told us we could look.

Q. What did you do then?

(R-9) A. Part of the time, I stayed at the rear of the vehicle with Miss White, and Corporal Reynolds started looking through the vehicle. Into the search, I moved up to the passenger's side of the vehicle and looked into the vehicle. Corporal Reynolds saw a brown attache' case which we had had information the cocaine would be inside.

Q. Where was the attache' case located?

A. I believe it was on the back seat.

Q. Was the attache' case locked, unlocked, opened closed? In what condition was it in?

A. It was closed and locked.

Q. Did you subsequently open that case?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. How did you do that?

A. I asked her for the combination. It was a combination lock. I asked her for the combination. She gave it to me. I passed it along to Corporal Reynolds.

Q. Did that combination open the attache' case?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. What, if anything, was found inside of the attache' case?

A. Two plastic bags each containing a quantity of marijuana, numerous empty baggies, plastic bags, (R-10) and numerous small manilla envelopes, the small type that are commonly used to sellnickel [sic] and dime bags of marijuana.

Q. Besides the marijuana, was anything else found?

A. Later, when we were processing her, we found a small amount of cocaine in her purse.

Q. Had that been inside of the vehicle also?

A. Yes, it had.

Q. After the marijuana was found, was Miss White placed under arrest?

A. Yes, she was.

Q. Was me [sic] marandized at that time?

A. Yes, she was.

Q. Subsequent to being marandized, did she make any statements to you?

A. Yes. She said that she had forgotten the marijuana -

Mr. Pierson: Your honor, I object on the basis for the advise of -

(Contd By Mr. Spoon:)

Q. After she had been marandized, did you or anyone in your presence or hearing offer her any reward or hope of reward for making a statement to you?

A. No.

Q. Did you threaten her or coerce her in any manner (R-11) or did anyone in your presence or hearing do so?

A. No.

Q. After being properly marandized, did she then make any statement or give any statement to you?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. What was the substance -

Mr. Pierson: Your Honor, I object to the substance of the statement and ask to take witness on voir dire.

The Court: Okay.

[VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION DELETED]

(R-14) (Contd direct By Mr. Spoon:)

Q. What did the defendant state to you after being properly mirandized?

A. She stated she'd forgotten that the marijuana was in the briefcase, that she used to sell it, and hadn't done so in awhile.

Q. Did she make any statements regarding the cocaine?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. What was that?

A. She stated that the white pouder [sic] that we found in the small plastic bag was cut. She used that to replace cocaine that she took from packages that she would obtain for other individuals, and that the cocaine found in a folded dollar bill was some that she'd used some out of.

Q. And was this in Montgomery County?

A. Yes, it was.

(R-15) Mr. Spoon: No further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION

(By Mr. Pierson:)

Q. Corporal Davis, at approximately what time did you receive the anonymous tip?

A. Approximately 3:00 P.M.

Q. Did the person that called identify his or herself?

A. No, he didn't.

Q. Did you know who that person was who called?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Have you subsequently determined who that was that called?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. Did the person that called in give you any information as to the basis of the caller's knowledge that there would be drugs in the station wagon?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. So, at the time the stop was made, you had no basis - no knowledge of the basis of the knowledge of the car (sic); is that correct?

A. What I had at that time was a concerned citizen call, and I assumed it to be true.

Q. But no knowledge of that caller's basis of (R-16) knowledge?

A. He just stated the subject would be in possession of the cocaine and these other particulars that turned out to be true.

Q. But at the time you received the information, the information that you were acting on in making the stop, you had no knowledge of the basis of the caller's information; is that correct?

A. That's true.

Q. And at the time the stop was made, you had no knowledge of the reliability of the caller; is that correct?

A. At that point, I definitely assumed that the caller was reliable because of the things that he had told me about in regard to her leaving a particular place, in a particular car, going to a particular location, and it -

Q. But apart from the subsequent observations that you made, you had no knowledge at the time you received the information as to the caller's reliability. Is that true?

A. That's true.

Q. Was this particular person who called in the information under any type of investigation or charges with the police department?

(R-17) A. Not that I know of.

Q. To your knowledge, had this person ever in the past provided reliable information to the police department in any criminal investigations?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know whether or not the caller knew anybody at the police department?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Did you know at the time you received the information whether or not the caller had any particular reason or motive for providing the information?

A. He seemed to be a concerned citizen.

Q. Did the caller indicate that to you?

A. Just - that was what I assumed, considering he was calling in and giving us this information.

Q. But did the caller provide you with any information as to the motive or the purpose for the caller providing the information?

A. No, he didn't.

Q. Other than what you have testified to, were there any other facts or details from the caller that you were later able to corroborate from your independent observation?

A. Would you repeat that?

(R-18) Q. Was there anything else, other than what you've testified to that, you corroborated?

A. Not that I can think of at this time.

Q. Did the caller tell you which tail light would be out?

A. The right one.

Q. And was, in fact, the right tail light out?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. The defendant in the case was at the time living in that apartment; is that correct?

A. I didn't know it at that particular time. I believe I have since found out she was staying there.

Q. So, in effect, the information was that she would be leaving her residence at a given time in a brown station wagon?

A. The caller didn't say that she would be leaving her residence. He just said she would be leaving this area.

Q. But based on information that you subsequently found out, she was, in fact, leaving her residence?

A. She was possibly leaving her residence; yes.

Q. Did the caller say anything to the effect that there would be a car full of drugs when you made (R-19) the stop?

A. He said there would be a quantity of cocaine inside a brown attache' case.

Q. Did the caller say anything about the amount, other than a quantity? Anything to the effect there would be a lot of drugs?

A. I believe he did say in the neighborhood of an ounce, possibly.

Q. Which would be considered as a substantial amount of cocaine?

A. That's a fair amount.

Q. In fact, it was a small amount, is that correct, a trace amount of cocaine that was found?

A. It turned out to be three milligrams.

Q. So, that was substantially less than the information that you had received?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Before obtaining Miss White's consent to search the vehicle, did you advise her that she had the right not to consent?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Approximately what time was the stop made?

A. Approximately - just a minute or two between 4:20. The time of her arrest was 4:20 P.M.

Q. Approximately an hour and twenty minutes after you (R-20) received the information, the call?

A. Approximately.

Q. And you knew at the time you received the information that the cocaine or drugs would be found in the briefcase?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you make any efforts to obtain a search warrant for the briefcase?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Was the briefcase opened on the scene of the stop?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Prior to obtaining the combination, was Miss White advised of her Miranda Rights?

A. No, she wasn't.

Q. The cocaine was found inside of a cigarette case and inside the defendant's purse; is that correct?

A. I believe it was a zipper pouch inside of her purse.

Q. Did you make any efforts to obtain a search warrant for the purse?

A. No, we didn't.

Q. Where was the purse located in the car?

A. I believe it was on the front seat.

Q. The cocaine was found inside of a cigarette case, inside of the purse?

(R-21) A. I don't know that it was a cigarette case. It was some type of zipper pouch.

Q. Did you have any - what was your purpose in searching inside the purse and inside the cigarette case?

A. We were fixing to place the defendant in the city jail, and we needed to know if she was in possession of any weapons, anything that could be used for a weapon, or any more controlled substances.

Q. So, the search of the purse was made in the city jail?

A. In the narcotics office, just previous to taking her around to the city jill [sic].

Q. And this was after you had found drugs in the briefcase; is that true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you made no efforts to obtain a search warrant for the purse?

A. No, we didn't.

Q. Were you looking for weapons in searching the purse and the cigarette [sic] case?

A. Primarily, yes, we were.

Q. The primary purpose was to search for weapons?

A. That's correct.

(R-22) Q. What type of weapons were you searching for inside the cigarrette [sic] case?

A. It could have been anything, even a razor blade or a pen.

Mr. Pierson: No further questions.

Mr. Spoon: Nothing further of this witness.

The Court: Step down and call your next witness.

Mr. Spoon: V. D. McMillon.

V. D. MCMILLON

Having been called as a witness was duly sworn to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, took the stand, and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

(By Mr. Spoon:)

Q. State your name for the record, please?

A. Officer V. D. McMillon.

Q. How are you employed?

A. Montgomery police department.

Q. How long have you been so employed?

A. About six months.

Q. On April 22nd, what capacity were you working with the police department?

(R-23) A. I was on patrole [sic].

Q. Where were you working on April 22nd?

A. I was working the Mobile Highway area.

Q. Who was your partner at that time?

A. Officer T. H. Simmons.

Q. During the course of your patrole [sic], did you have an opportunity [to] stop a brown Plymouth station wagon?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did that take place?

A. On Mobile Highway in front of the Jet Theater, the old Jet Theater.

Q. Who was driving that car?

A. I was, sir.

Q. No. Who was driving the car that was stopped?

A. A white female.

Q. Is she present in court?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Is she seated at counsel table?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How did you come about stopping that vehicle?

A. We got a call by vice that they wanted us to stop the subject's vehicle. So, we turned around and pulled in behind when we saw it and stopped it in front of the Jet Theater.

Q. Is that up [sic] going towards Dobey's Motel?

(R-24) A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you stopped the vehicle, was anyone else present in the vehicle?

A. No, sir.

Q. Just the one white female?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you exit your patrol car?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you go up to the driver's side of the car?

A. Just about that time, vice came up and took over.

Q. All right, sir. When you got up there, did you see a brown attache' case in the car?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was it?

A. It was on the front seat, next to the driver.

Q. Inside of the car?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. At the scene, did you or anyone in your presence or hearing ever threaten the driver?

A. No, sir.

Q. Were you present when she consented to have her car searched?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were any threats made to her at that time on the part of any police officer?

(R-25) A. No, sir.

Q. Did anyone promise her anything to get her to consent?

A. No, sir.

Mr. Spoon: No further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION

(By Mr. Pierson:)

Q. Officer McMillon, did you see where the purse was inside of the car?

A. No, sir. I didn't see no purse.

Mr. Person: No further questions.

The Court: Step Down.

Mr. Spoon: State rests, your honor.

The Court: All right.

Mr. Pierson: All right. The defendant rests.

The Court: Defendant rests?

Mr. Pierson: Yes.

The Court: All right. I will get you all an order out.

Mr. Pierson: Would you like to hear any argument?

The Court: How about the state?

Mr. Spoon: We will waive our first part and wait for rebuttal.