Case Title: Ex parte Robert Swan Siercks. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Robert Swan Siercks v. State of Alabama) (Madison Circuit Court: CC-12-3131; Criminal Appeals : CR-12-0874). Writ Denied. No Opinion.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1130847

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2014-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel: 06/20/2014
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2013-2014
____________________
1130847
____________________
Ex parte Robert Swan Siercks
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: Robert Swan Siercks
v.
State of Alabama)
(Madison Circuit Court, CC-12-3131;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-12-0874)
MAIN, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Shaw, Wise, and Bryan,
JJ., concur.  
Moore, C.J., dissents.
1130847
MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting).
Robert Swan Siercks was stopped by police for a seatbelt
violation. When Siercks was unable to produce any form of
identification when requested to do so, an officer ordered him
out of the vehicle. According to the Court of Criminal
Appeals: "When Siercks opened the driver's side door and
started to get out of the vehicle, Officer [Steven] Graham saw
'in plain view between the door and the driver's seat ... a
small white rock of cocaine.'" Siercks v. State, [Ms. CR-12-
0874, Nov. 8, 2013] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2013). After
field-testing the substance, Officer Graham arrested Siercks
for unlawful possession of cocaine. When the jury returned a
verdict of guilty, the trial court sentenced Siercks as a
habitual felony offender to 15 years' imprisonment. The Court
of 
Criminal 
Appeals 
affirmed 
Siercks's 
conviction 
and 
remanded
the case for the trial court to impose fines it had waived on
original sentencing. On return to remand, the Court of
Criminal 
Appeals 
affirmed 
Siercks's 
sentence 
by 
an 
unpublished
memorandum. Siercks then filed this petition for certiorari
review.
2
1130847
Although contraband located "between the door and the
driver's seat" may be in "plain view" of a police officer once
the driver's door of a vehicle is opened, the driver may or
may not have a line of sight into the crevice between the
closed door and the left edge of the driver's seat while
operating the vehicle. If the seat wedges tightly against the
closed door, an object "in plain view" when the driver's door
is open may be completely invisible and inaccessible to the
driver when the door is closed. On the other hand, a gap of
two inches or more between the left edge of the seat and the
closed door would permit the driver easily to touch the object
with his hand. "When constructive possession is relied on, the
prosecution must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused had knowledge of the presence of the controlled
substances." Robinette v. State, 531 So. 2d 682, 686 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1987). Such knowledge "may be inferred from the
accused's exclusive possession, ownership, and control of the
premises" where the illegal substance is found. Id. 
In this case Siercks was driving a vehicle registered to
another person who lived at the same address as Siercks. Thus,
Siercks did not have "exclusive possession, ownership, and
3
1130847
control" of the vehicle. In the absence of exclusive
possession of the premises, "knowledge [of the presence of the
controlled substances] may not be inferred unless there are
other circumstances tending to buttress this inference."
Robinette, 531 So. 2d at 686. Although Siercks had potential
physical control over the cocaine, the Court of Criminal
Appeals did not identify any other behavior to connect him
with the substance. He had no drugs on him; he did not act
guilty; and he did not flee or admit possession.   
I am not persuaded that the jury had before it sufficient
evidence from which to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
Siercks had knowledge of the presence of the small rock of
cocaine that, though in proximity to his person, may not have
been visible to him. Because I would grant Siercks's petition
for a writ of certiorari to examine the record as to the
sufficiency of the evidence on the issue of constructive
possession,  I respectfully dissent. 
1
"Constructive possession is a legal fiction used by
1
courts to find possession in situations where it does not in
fact exist, but where they nevertheless want an individual to
acquire the legal status of a possessor." Charles H.
Whitebread & Ronald Stevens, Constructive Possession in
Narcotics Cases: To Have and Have Not, 58 Va. L. Rev. 751,
761-62 (1972).
4