State Of Oklahoma v Margaret Ann Brumfield

S-2009-862

Filed: Sep. 10, 2010

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Jeffery Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. The conviction and sentence were reversed, and the evidence was suppressed. Margaret Ann Brumfield also had similar charges. The court decided that the police officer did not have enough evidence to search their vehicle initially, so the evidence found was not allowed. Judge Lumpkin disagreed with the final decision.

Decision

The district court's order suppressing evidence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there probable cause for the initial search of the Brumfields' vehicle?
• Did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding that the search was unreasonable?
• Was the decision of the district court to suppress evidence justified based on the circumstances of the case?

Findings

• the district court's order suppressing evidence is AFFIRMED

S-2009-862

Sep. 10, 2010

State Of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Margaret Ann Brumfield

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

C. JOHNSON, PRESIDING JUDGE: Pursuant to 22 O.S. § 1053(5), the State of Oklahoma appeals the district court’s granting of motions to suppress evidence by the district court in these two companion cases. Jeffrey Dale Brumfield was charged by Information in Custer County District Court, Case No. CF-2007-168, with Possession of Methamphetamine (63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-402). His wife, Margaret Brumfield, was charged in Custer County District Court Case No. CF-2007-169 with the same crime. Preliminary hearing for both defendants was held August 16, 2007 before the Honorable Jill C. Weedon, Special Judge, and both defendants were bound over for trial as charged. On October 18, 2007, the defendants filed motions to suppress evidence with briefs in support. A hearing on these motions was held November 19, 2007 before the Honorable Charles L. Goodwin, District Judge. After receiving evidence and hearing argument, the district court granted the motions to suppress. The State timely lodged an appeal pursuant to 22 O.S. § 1053(5). In unpublished Summary Opinions issued October 8, 2008, this Court reversed the district court’s suppression orders, and remanded both cases for further proceedings. Brumfield v. State, Case No. S-2007-1180 & Brumfield v. State, S-2007-1181. On September 8, 2009, the defendants filed a joint motion to suppress. The State filed a response on September 17, 2009, and the defendants replied on September 21, 2009. On September 22, 2009, the Honorable Christopher S. Kelly, Associate District Judge, sustained the motion to suppress on different grounds than were the subject of the original state appeal. Again, the State timely lodged an appeal. The essential facts are not in dispute. The charges in these cases arise from a highway traffic stop. Trooper Johnson, of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, stopped a vehicle driven by Mr. Brumfield for speeding, and determined that Mr. Brumfield did not have a valid driver’s license. Mrs. Brumfield was a front-seat passenger in the vehicle. After some brief questioning and a few sobriety tests, Johnson suspected that Mr. Brumfield was under the influence of a stimulant such as methamphetamine. Based on his suspicions, Johnson had Mr. Brumfield and his wife sit in the patrol car while he searched their vehicle. Finding nothing incriminating, Johnson told the Brumfields they were free to leave. However, before the Brumfields had driven away, Johnson reviewed a conversation they had during the search, picked up by a recorder in the patrol car, which suggested that illegal drugs might be found underneath the front passenger seat. Johnson quickly hailed the Brumfields before they left, searched again, and found a quantity of methamphetamine underneath the front passenger seat of the vehicle. The State appeals the district court’s ruling that Trooper Johnson lacked probable cause to conduct the first search of the Brumfields’ vehicle.

We review the district court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. Gomez v. State, 2007 OK CR 33, ¶ 5, 168 P.3d 1139, 1141. We defer to the district court’s findings of fact unless they are not supported by competent evidence and are therefore clearly erroneous. We review the district court’s legal conclusions based on those facts de novo. Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, ¶ 5, 152 P.3d 235, 237. Trooper Johnson’s observations, coupled with his experience and training, support at least a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Brumfield was under the influence of some sort of intoxicant. However, reasonable suspicion that a motorist is under the influence of an intoxicant is not the same as probable cause to believe that controlled substances will be found in the motorist’s vehicle. On this particular set of facts, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the search was unreasonable.

DECISION

The district court’s order suppressing evidence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CUSTER COUNTY
THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER S. KELLY, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

JASON C. HARRIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
524 W. THIRD ST.
P.O. BOX 926
ELK CITY, OK 73644

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
JEFFERY BRUMFIELD

BECKY JO BARNEY
JUAN GARCIA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
519 W. MAIN ST.
P.O. BOX 36
WEATHERFORD, OK 73096
ARAPAHO, OK 73620

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
MARGARET BRUMFIELD
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY C. JOHNSON, P.J.
A. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-402.
2. Brumfield v. State, Case No. S-2007-1180 & Brumfield v. State, S-2007-1181.
3. 22 O.S. § 1053(5).
4. Gomez v. State, 2007 OK CR 33, 168 P.3d 1139, 1141.
5. Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, 152 P.3d 235, 237.
6. Brumfield v. State, Case No. S-2007-1180, Slip Op. at fn. 1.
7. 22, Ch.18, App. (2010).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053 (2011) - Motions to suppress
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 (2004) - Possession of controlled dangerous substances

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Gomez v. State, 2007 OK CR 33, ¶ 5, 168 P.3d 1139, 1141
• Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, ¶ 5, 152 P.3d 235, 237
• Brumfield v. State, Case No. S-2007-1180
• Brumfield v. State, Case No. S-2007-1181