Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
Assigned on Briefs May 18, 2004

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICKY ALLEN FRAZIER
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County
No. S46,293 R. Jerry Beck, Judge

No. E2003-02853-CCA-R3-CD - July 9, 2004
The defendant, Ricky Allen Frazier, entered pleas of guilt to possession of Oxycodone, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana for resale, a Class E felony; manufacturing marijuana, a Class E felony; possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of open title, a Class C misdemeanor; violation of the registration law, a Class C misdemeanor; speeding, a Class C misdemeanor; and maintaining a dwelling where a controlled substance is used or sold, a Class D felony.  The trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years. As a part of the plea agreement, the defendant reserved a certified question of law under Rule 37(b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.  The single question presented for review is whether the search and seizure of the defendant and his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. The judgments are affirmed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgments of the Trial Court Affirmed
GARY R. WADE, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOE G. RILEY and ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined.
Cary C. Taylor, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellant, Ricky Allen Frazier.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Michelle Chapman McIntire, Assistant Attorney General; and Joseph Eugene Perrin, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION
In early August 2001, Sergeant Dale Phipps and other officers of the Kingsport Police Department, acting on a tip from an unnamed citizen that a shipment of thirty to forty pounds of marijuana was to be delivered at the trailer on August 7, conducted surveillance of a trailer located at 1745 Audie Street in Kingsport for three or four days.  During that time, the defendant and Larry Henson were seen at the trailer on a regular basis with, according to Sergeant Phipps, "traffic coming and going . . . conducting some sort of business." On August 8, the defendant and Henson entered the trailer and after 15 to 20 minutes, Henson walked outside and placed a "rolled up brown paper bag," which Sergeant Phipps estimated to be of a size capable of containing one-half pound of marijuana, into the trunk of a white Cadillac.  Henson waited in the passenger side of the vehicle until the defendant emerged from the trailer and drove the vehicle away.  
As Sergeant Phipps and Detective Rusty Wallace continued to watch the trailer, two other officers, Kingsport Police Detectives Joey Graham and Sean Chambers, searched for and found the vehicle driving on Virginia Avenue.  A prior check of the license plate number had established that the number was not registered to a Cadillac but to a Chevrolet Cavalier. The two detectives, driving an unmarked vehicle, paced the Cadillac, which had no brake lights, at 45 mph through a 30 mph zone.  When the defendant drove into the parking lot of the Midway Market, the detectives also stopped there.  Detective Chambers, who was dressed in street clothes, walked to the driver's side of the vehicle, showed the defendant his badge, and identified  himself as a police officer.  According to Detective Chambers, neither of the cars blocked the path of the Cadillac.  When the defendant opened his car door, Detective Chambers immediately detected a "reeking" odor of marijuana on his person. Detective Chambers asked the defendant to step out of the car and requested  permission to search his person. The defendant replied, "Go ahead." Shortly thereafter, two uniformed officers, Sergeant Jerry Robinson and Officer Justin Quillen, arrived at the scene in separate, marked patrol cars.  Upon searching the defendant, Detective Chambers found $9,527.00 in cash in the defendant's pocket. After asking for and receiving the defendant's permission to search the vehicle, Detective Chambers looked throughout the passenger compartment of the car, finding nothing.  The detective then asked the defendant for the keys to the trunk and was directed to the ignition of the vehicle. Detective Chambers removed the keys, opened the trunk, and found inside the brown paper bag eight individually wrapped bags of marijuana having a total weight of more than 200 grams.  Detective Chambers conceded that by the time he asked to search the vehicle, the defendant was no longer free to leave.  It was his contention that the defendant was free to leave until the cash was found in his possession.
Later, a search warrant was issued for the trailer.  Two and one-half pounds of marijuana were found inside.  The defense did not offer any proof at the hearing on the motion to suppress.  
At the conclusion of the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court accredited the testimony of Detective Chambers and determined that although there were sufficient grounds for the officers to stop the defendant, the defendant had actually stopped his vehicle at the convenience store of his own accord and was not the subject of an investigatory stop initiated by law enforcement.  The trial court also concluded that the initial encounter between the defendant and Detective Chambers did not constitute a seizure.  It ruled that the defendant was not "in custody" until Detective Chambers found the cash in the defendant's pocket.  The trial court concluded that the discovery of the cash, along with the odor of marijuana and the detectives' observations during the surveillance, gave the officers probable cause to arrest the defendant and to search the vehicle he was driving.
The defendant argues on appeal that the tip provided by a citizen informant, the period of surveillance, and the officers' observance of the brown paper bag being placed into the trunk of the vehicle was insufficient to establish the requisite suspicion to warrant the initial detention. In addition, he claims that the additional information acquired by the officers after the vehicle was stopped at the convenience market did not rise to the level of probable cause to arrest.  He also argues that the consent to the search of his person and his vehicle was involuntary because he was "surrounded by four officers" at the convenience market.  The state submits that the certified question is too broad and, therefore, does not comply with the requirements of Rule 37.  In the alternative, the state asserts that the trial court correctly denied the defendant's suppression motion.
Both the state and federal constitutions protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures; the general rule is that a warrantless search or seizure is presumed unreasonable and any evidence discovered subject to suppression.  U.S. Const. amend. IV; Tenn. Const. art. I,

Download FrazierRA.pdf

Tennessee Law