Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 10/17/95 OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 92-KA-00119 COA

PATRICK ANTHONY REYNOLDS AND RONALD KEVIN LUCAS APPELLANTS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KOSTA VLAHOS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: F. HOLT MONTGOMERY, JR.; HERMAN COX ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOLENE M. LOWRY; DEIRDRE McCRORY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: CONO A. CARANNA, II NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - ILLEGAL DRUGS TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: LUCAS WAS SENTENCED TO 15 YEARS IN THE MDOC, WITH 5 YEARS SUSPENDED AND FINED $15,000. REYNOLDS WAS SENTENCED TO 20 YEARS IN THE MDOC, WITH 5 YEARS SUSPENDED, AND FINED $25,000.

BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., BARBER, AND PAYNE, JJ. BRIDGES, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

Patrick Anthony Reynolds and Ronald Kevin Lucas were convicted on various narcotics charges arising out of a traffic stop on Interstate 10 in Harrison County. Each defendant raises different issues on appeal, but both allege that the convictions should be reversed because there was lack of probable cause to make the traffic stop which resulted in their arrest on the drug charges. After reviewing the record, we are of the opinion that the only issue which needs to be addressed is that pertaining to probable cause in stopping the defendants in order to make the arrest in connection with the drug charges. Finding that the lower court failed to find that reasonable suspicion existed as to why the officer stopped the appellants, we reverse and remand for a hearing on that issue. FACTS On April 1, 1990, Reynolds and Lucas were traveling eastward from Houston, Texas to Jacksonville, Florida on Interstate 10 in a 1986 model Ford pickup truck displaying a Texas tag. At approximately 8:00 a.m., they were stopped and pulled over by Officer Billy Collins of the Harrison County Sheriff's Department. Officer Collins was stopped and parked in the median of the highway, looking south, between the eastbound and westbound lanes, when the defendants passed him. Officer Collins noticed that the truck had a cracked windshield and proceeded to pull the truck over in order to issue a traffic citation. Lucas was driving the vehicle. While Officer Collins was walking from his patrol car to the pickup truck, he smelled "burnt" marijuana. When he approached the window of the truck he saw in open view on the cab floor some cigarettes which had been smoked or partially smoked, and which turned out to be marijuana. Officer Collins found other drugs in a subsequent search of the vehicle. The defendants requested a suppression hearing to challenge the introduction of any evidence on the grounds that the stop was improper and therefore, all evidence seized was done so unlawfully. At that hearing, Officer Collins testified that the windshield was cracked in such a manner that it was easily visible from his patrol car and a danger to the occupants of the vehicle. The crack began on the passenger's side and continued across the middle of the truck's windshield. He did not advise Lucas that he was issuing him a ticket for the cracked windshield, nor has any citation been found to date. Defendants' motion to suppress was denied by the trial court. Trial of the defendants began July 23, 1991. No evidence or testimony was introduced to show that the crack in the windshield extended to the driver's side or into the windshield wiper arch on the driver's side. There is no evidence in the record that the condition of the windshield hindered the driver's vision because it was so shattered, clouded or pitted, or that the crack had any rough or sharp edges exposed. However, both Reynolds and Lucas were found guilty on drug charges. DISCUSSION OF THE LAW 1. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO GRANT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BASED ON A LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO MEET THE TRAFFIC STOP WHICH RESULTED IN THE APPELLANTS ARREST?

Both Reynolds and Lucas argue that Officer Collins did not have probable cause to stop them. They argue that at the suppression hearing, no proof was put on as to how such a "tiny crack" could have been a danger or impaired the driver's vision. Mississippi law provides: No person shall drive or move on any highway any motor vehicle, . . . unless the equipment upon any and every said vehicle is in good working order and adjustment as required in this chapter, and said vehicle is in such safe mechanical condition as not to endanger the driver or other occupant or any person upon the highway.

Miss. Code Ann.

Download Patrick Anthony Reynolds v. State of Mississippi.pdf

Mississippi Law