State Of Oklahoma v Steven Allen Ridge

S-2013-322

Filed: Oct. 23, 2013

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Steven Allen Ridge

Summary

# Steven Allen Ridge appealed his conviction for drug possession. Conviction and sentence were reversed. No justices dissented. In this case, the state of Oklahoma was trying to use evidence against Ridge that was taken when a police officer stopped him during a suspected drug deal. The police thought Ridge was doing something illegal because he switched cars in a convenience store parking lot. When the officer smelled marijuana and asked Ridge to step out of the car, Ridge admitted he had marijuana inside. Ridge first asked the court to block the evidence from being used against him, but his request was denied. Ridge then asked a different judge to reconsider that decision, and this time the judge agreed with Ridge that the evidence should be blocked. The state of Oklahoma argued that the judge shouldn't have been able to reconsider the previous decision and that the officer had enough of a reason to stop Ridge. However, the court decided that the initial stop wasn't justified because the officer didn’t have enough evidence to suspect Ridge was doing anything illegal just based on what he observed. Ultimately, the court agreed with the decision to keep the evidence out, meaning Ridge's conviction couldn't stand.

Decision

The Order of the District Court of March 20, 2013, sustaining the defendant's motion to suppress evidence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was Judge Hiddle barred by issue preclusion from reviewing the matter urged in Ridge's motion to reconsider?
• did Judge Hiddle abuse his discretion by suppressing evidence obtained during the investigative detention?

Findings

• Judge Hiddle was not barred by issue preclusion from reviewing the matter urged in Ridge's motion to reconsider.
• The State's claim that Judge Hiddle abused his discretion by suppressing evidence obtained during the investigative detention is denied.

S-2013-322

Oct. 23, 2013

State Of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Steven Allen Ridge

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

A. JOHNSON, JUDGE:

The State of Oklahoma appeals from an order entered on March 20, 2013, by the Honorable William Hiddle of the District Court of Tulsa County in Case No. CM-2012-4076. Judge Hiddle heard Defendant Ridge’s motion to reconsider and sustained Ridge’s motion to quash seizure and suppress evidence that had been denied previously. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053, and affirm the district court’s suppression order.

BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2012, Broken Arrow Police Detective Mike Jackson observed what he believed was a drug deal between Ridge and another person in the parking lot of Quick Trip in Broken Arrow. He saw Ridge seated in a Ford Probe parked on the west side of the convenience store by itself and a silver Dodge Charger pull up next to it. Ridge got out of the Probe, got into the Charger^1 for approximately one minute, then got out of the Charger and back into the Probe. Detective Jackson, based on his training and experience, believed he had witnessed a drug transaction and pulled his unmarked vehicle behind the Probe blocking it. When he approached the Probe from the driver’s side, he smelled the odor of marijuana coming from inside the car. He asked Ridge to step out of the car and explained his observations and suspicions. Ridge told Detective Jackson that the other person was merely delivering papers for a puppy Ridge had purchased. When Detective Jackson radioed for a K-9 unit, Ridge admitted there was marijuana in the car under his seat. Detective Jackson shined his flashlight in the window and saw a bag of marijuana in the car. Another officer arrived, took custody of the marijuana and placed Ridge under arrest.

The State appeals the district court’s order sustaining Ridge’s motion to suppress raising two issues: (1) whether Judge Hiddle was barred by issue preclusion from reviewing the matter urged in Ridge’s motion to reconsider; and (2) whether Judge Hiddle abused his discretion by suppressing evidence obtained during the investigative detention.

DISCUSSION

1. The State challenges Judge Hiddle’s authority to rule on Ridge’s motion to reconsider the earlier denial of his motion to suppress. It argues the matter had been decided and reconsideration was barred by issue preclusion. The State also maintains that a motion to reconsider is not a proper vehicle to challenge the original denial of Ridge’s motion to suppress and that Judge^2 Hiddle had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal via a motion to reconsider. We disagree. Ridge filed a motion to suppress evidence, and the assigned judge, the Honorable Sarah Day Smith, denied the motion before trial. The misdemeanor docket, including this case, was then transferred from Judge Smith to Judge Hiddle for trial. On the day of the pretrial conference, Ridge filed a motion to reconsider his motion to suppress before Judge Hiddle who set the matter for a hearing and ultimately ruled in Ridge’s favor. The facts and reasoning in State v. Greenwood, 1977 OK CR 202, II 6 & 7, 565 P.2d 701, 703 guide us here. In Greenwood, the defendant was charged with a felony drug charge and a misdemeanor drug charge based on the seizure of heroin and marijuana found during the execution of a search warrant of the defendant’s residence. Id. at I 2, 565 P.2d at 702. Greenwood filed a motion to suppress the heroin in the felony case and the motion was granted. Id. at I 3, 565 P.2d at 702. The misdemeanor case went to non-jury trial and the defendant orally moved to suppress the marijuana because the motion to suppress had been sustained in the felony case. Id. at 4, 565 P.2d at 702. The State asked the trial judge to consider the validity of the warrant, but the trial judge sustained the motion based solely on the ruling in the felony case, without any consideration of the validity of the search warrant, and entered judgment for the defendant. Id. This Court found error stating:

The pre-trial ruling on the motion to suppress in the felony case was not binding upon the court in the instant [misdemeanor] case. Collateral estoppel only applies when there has been a final adjudication of an ultimate issue of fact. It is elementary that a trial court may overrule a motion to suppress and proceed to trial; thereafter, the defendant may renew his objection to the introduction of the evidence and the trial court is not bound by the prior ruling, but may reconsider the objection and sustain the same. Conversely, if the trial court sustained a pre-trial motion to suppress, the State may thereafter, during trial, offer said evidence and the trial court may reconsider the pretrial order and is not bound thereby. Id., 1977 OK CR 202, 11 6 & 7, 565 P.2d at 703 (citations omitted).

Judge Hiddle was the assigned trial judge with jurisdiction over this case. This case involves nothing more than a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence that was subject to re-examination during the proceedings. The issue of the admissibility of the evidence was not barred by issue preclusion or collateral estoppel because it was not a final adjudication of an ultimate issue of fact.^2 Nor was the motion to reconsider an appeal of Judge Smith’s previous order. Greenwood is good authority here; Judge Hiddle was not bound by the earlier ruling on the motion to suppress and was free to reconsider it and rule accordingly. This claim is denied.

2. The State argues Judge Hiddle abused his discretion in finding that Detective Jackson lacked the necessary reasonable suspicion to detain Ridge when he pulled his vehicle in behind Ridge and blocked him in.^2 The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, holds that when an ultimate issue has been determined by a valid and final judgment, it cannot be re-litigated by the parties in some future lawsuit. Smith v. State, 2013 OK CR 14, F 14, 306 P.3d 557, 564.

We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Goins, 2004 OK CR 5, T 7, 84 P.3d 767, 769. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the matter at issue. Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170. In reviewing the district court’s suppression order, we accept the district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, review questions of law de novo, and view the evidence in the light most favorable to Ridge, the prevailing party below. Underwood v. State, 2011 OK CR 12, I 12, 252 P.3d 221, 232, cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S.Ct. 1019, 181 L.Ed.2d 752 (2012); Coffia v. State, 2008 OK CR 24, I 5, 191 P.3d 594, 596. A police officer may detain a person for investigation without probable cause to arrest when the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be afoot. United States U. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting Terry U. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884-85, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). A reasonable suspicion has been defined as some minimal level of objective justification. I.N.S. U. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 1763, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984). In order to meet the reasonable suspicion threshold, [t]he officer, of course, must be able to articulate something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch. Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7, 109 S.Ct. at 1585 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883) (internal quotation marks omitted). The concept of reasonable suspicion is not ‘readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules. Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7, 109 S.Ct. at 1585 (citation omitted). And, whether a detention is supported by reasonable suspicion of illegal activity depends on the totality of the circumstances-the whole picture rather than upon any one factor. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). See also State v. Bass, 2013 OK CR 7, I 12, 300 P.3d 1193, 1196.

The court found that Detective Jackson detained Ridge when he blocked him in with his unmarked police car and that Detective Jackson’s observation of Ridge getting into the Dodge Charger for a brief time and then returning to his own car was insufficient objective justification to detain Ridge under Terry.^3 The court properly considered the facts and law pertaining to this Terry stop and its ruling is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. This claim is denied.

DECISION

The Order of the District Court of March 20, 2013, sustaining the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

APPEARANCES AT DISTRICT COURT

ADAM R. SCHARN
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TULSA COUNTY
500 S. DENVER AVE.
TULSA, OK 74103
ATTORNEY FOR STATE

EDWARD LUTZ
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1421 S. YALE AVE.
TULSA, OK 74112
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, J.

LEWIS, P.J.: Concur
SMITH, V.P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur
C. JOHNSON, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 1 The Honorable Sarah Day Smith heard and denied Ridge's motion to quash and suppress on December 12, 2012. He filed a motion to reconsider on February 22, 2013, asking the court to reconsider its ruling in light of Perez v. State, an unpublished decision from this Court.
2. 2 The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, holds that when an ultimate issue has been determined by a valid and final judgment, it cannot be re-litigated by the parties in some future lawsuit. Smith v. State, 2013 OK CR 14, ¶ 14, 306 P.3d 557, 564.
3. 3 The pre-trial ruling on the motion to suppress in the felony case was not binding upon the court in the instant [misdemeanor] case. Collateral estoppel only applies when there has been a final adjudication of an ultimate issue of fact.
4. 4 The concept of reasonable suspicion is not 'readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules." Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7, 109 S.Ct. 1585 (citation omitted).
5. 5 And, whether a detention is supported by reasonable suspicion of illegal activity depends on "the totality of the circumstances-the whole picture" rather than upon any one factor. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981).
6. 6 See also State v. Bass, 2013 OK CR 7, ¶ 12, 300 P.3d 1193, 1196.
7. 7 Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053 (2011) - Jurisdiction over criminal appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Definitions pertaining to homicide
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 (2013) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 30 (2011) - Right to counsel

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:

• State v. Greenwood, 1977 OK CR 202, I 6 & 7, 565 P.2d 701, 703
• Smith v. State, 2013 OK CR 14, I 14, 306 P.3d 557, 564
• State v. Goins, 2004 OK CR 5, I 7, 84 P.3d 767, 769
• Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170
• Underwood v. State, 2011 OK CR 12, I 12, 252 P.3d 221, 232
• Coffia v. State, 2008 OK CR 24, I 5, 191 P.3d 594, 596
• United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884-85, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
• I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 1763, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)
• United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)
• State v. Bass, 2013 OK CR 7, I 12, 300 P.3d 1193, 1196