I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - KA- 0 0 4 3 5 - S CT BRANDON Q . GALESa / k / a BRANDON G

ALES v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 26/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. RI CH AR D A . SM I TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : P HI L L I P BR OADHE AD OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES STA N PER K I N S AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : L ADONN A C . HOL L AND J O H N R . H E N R Y , J R . DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: W I L L I E DE W AYNE RI CH AR DS ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 09/ 2014 F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CO LEM AN, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he i ns t antm att eri s bef or e the C our ton appea l f i l ed by B r andon Q . G al es agai ns t the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi . G al es w as convi ct ed i n the W as hi ngt on C ounty C i r cui tC our tof arm ed
r obbery and cons pi r acy t o comm i tarm ed r obbery w i th s ent ence s of l i f e i m pr i s onm entand fi v e y ea rs, resp ec ti v ely. G ales a p p ea led, raisi n g three issue s. W h il e the tr ial co u rt

### 2

comm i t t e d e r r or , s uc h e r r or s a r e h a r ml e s s , a nd the r e mai ni ng i s s ue s l a c k mer i t . Thus, t he C ou rtaff i rm s the judgm ent of

the tr i al cou rt , al beiton dif fer ent gr ou nd s. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. O n D ecem ber 19 , 20 11 , at abo ut 10 : 00 p. m . , A bd ulhaki m W eber w as i n the p rocess of cl os i ng hi s conveni ence s t or e, the H yattFood M art , f orthe ni ght . A s an empl oyee w as aboutt o l ock the f

r ontdoor , tw o bl ack mal es m as ked w i th w hi t e t - s hi r t s c ame i nt o the s t or e. O ne of the i ntruder s had a pi s t ol and yel l ed “nobody move” bef or e f i r i ng a shot i nt o the cei l i ng. T he shoot ert ook t he m oney t hatW eberhad bee n count i ng atthe r egi s t er , w hi l e the s hoot er ’ s pa r tnert ook money f r om W eber ’ s poc ket s . T he s hoot erthen demanded a pa ck of ci gar ett es bef

or e both r obber s f

l ed the s cene . W eber ’ s empl oyee c al l ed 911. ¶3. T he st ore w as equ i pp ed w i t h t w el ve s ecur i ty camer as , w hi ch captur ed the qui ck excha nge. T he vi deo show s t w o bl ack m al es , w ear i ng w hi t e t - s hi r t s as m as ks , ent er i ng t he s t or e. T he s hoot er w ore a bl ack hoodi e, l i ghtbl ue j eans , and br ow n cas ual s hoes . T he shoo t er’ s partner w ore a bl ack sw eat shi rt , gray pa nts , and black and gray sho es. ¶4 . W i t hi n m i nut es of t he 911 ca l l , of

f i cer s ar r i ve d a tthe s t or e and vi ew ed t he s ur vei l l ance f

oot age. O f

f i cerJ er emy A r endal e des cr i bed the f ugi t i ves t o di s pat ch, w hi ch i s s ued a “ be on the l ook out ” des cr i pt i on. T he des cr i pt i on depi ct ed a bl ack mal e w i th a bl ue s hi r t , bl ack pa nt s , and a w hi t e hoodi e and di d notdes cr i be the s us pect ’ s f ootw ear . Soon af

t er hear i ng the des cr i pt i on, O f f i cerTabar i Thom as s pot t ed a young bl ack m al e, l at eri dent i f i ed a s B ra n d o n G a les , ru n n in g ro u g h ly fiv e b lo c k s fr o m th e H y a tt F o o d M a rt. A c c o rd in g to O f f i cerT hom as , G al es w as runni ng butatt empt ed t o m ake i ts eem l i ke he w as w al ki ng upon

### Terry v. Ohio , 392 U. S. 1 ( 1968). 1 

### 3 not i ci ng t he pol i ce pr es ence . O f f i cerT hom as st opped G al es and as ked hi m w hy he w as out of br eath. G al es r es ponded thathe had j us tl ef ta gambl i ng hous e. ¶5. O f

f i cerThom as then conduct ed a T erry pat - dow n of G al es . W hi l e O f f i cerT hom as 1 d id n o t fin d a w e a p o n o n G a les , h e fe lt a b u lg e in G a les ’s b a c k p o c k e t. A c c o rd in g to h is t es t i m on y, O f

f i cerT hom as ei theras ked G al es t o “l ethi m s ee w hatw as i n hi s pocket ” or G al es vol unt ar i l y empt i ed hi s pocket s , s how i ng hi m m oney thatG al es s ai d he had w on gambl i ng. O f

f i cerThom as a s ked di s pat ch f oranotherdes cr i pt i on of the s us pect s . D i s pat ch res po nd ed, descri bing an indivi du al w i th a b l ack h oo die, l i gh tj eans, an d b row n casua l shoes. G al es w as notw ear i ng a bl ack hoodi e, b ut i nst ead a gr ay, l ong- s l eeve d s hi r t ; how ever , he
w as w ear i ng l i ghtj eans and br ow n cas ual s hoes . O f f i cerT hom as not ed t hatG al es s eemed suspi ci ou s, as he w as out of breat h and w eari ng li gh tclothes fora D ecem ber ni gh t . B ecause G al es part i al l y m at ched the des cr i pti on o f one of the r obber s , O f

f i cerT hom as handcuf

f ed and det ai ned G al es f

orf ur theri nves t i gat i on and s oon af t erdr ove hi m t o the cr i m e s cene . ¶6. A rr i vi ng at the H yatt Food M art , O f f i cer T hom as t ol d O f

f i cer A r endal e t hat he had det ai ned a per s on of

i nt er es t . O f

f i cerA r endal e s poke w i th G al es and phot ogr aphed the
m o n e y in G a les ’s p o c k e ts. T h e re a re so m e d isc re p a n c ies in th e re c o rd a s to w h a t ex a c tly happene d next . A ccor di ng t o O f f i cerA r endal e’ s r ecount , he w entback i nt o the st or e and ask ed W eb er ho w m u ch m o n ey w as stolen an d i n w h at de n o m ination s. O ffi c e r A re n d a le
r e turne d t o Gal e s , t oo k the mone y f r om hi s po c ke t s , a nd pr oc e e de d t o c ou ntthe money, w hi ch O f f i cerA r endal e t es t i f

i ed w as cons i s t entw i th W eber ’ s des cr i pt i on. O f f i cerA r endal e,

### 4

n o ti n g a five d o ll ar b il l w ith a re d stam p o n it , w en t b a c k to W eb er a n d ask ed h im if there
w a s a n y th in g u n u su a l ab o u t an y o f th e b ill s. W e b e r p ro c e e d e d to d e sc rib e a fiv e d o llar b ill
w i th a r ed s t amp on i tthathe had r ece i ved f r om the bank. ¶ 7 . A c c o rd in g to W e b e r’s re c o u n t, afte r th e p o lice d e tain e d th e su sp e c t, O ffic e r A re n d a le i m m edi at el y br oughtt he m on ey i ns i de the s t or e and pl ace d i ton the count er . O f f i cer A rendal e a sk ed W eber i f he kne w any of the seri al nu m bers, and , aft er vi ew i ng the b i l l s, W eberr ecogni zed the bi l l w i th the s t amp on i ta s one thathe ha d a cqui r ed thr ough r egul ar bus i nes s and notf

r om a bank. G al es w as pl ace d underarr es tand br oughtt o the pol i ce s t at i on once the pol i ce c onnect ed hi m t o the bi l l w i th the r ed s t amp. ¶8 . A t the stat ion , o ffi ce rs sw ab b ed G ales’s h an d s for g u n sh o t residu e. T h e sw ab s w ere s entt o the M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Lab, w her e f or ens i c s ci ent i s tC had Suggs anal yzed them for the pr es ence of

guns hotr es i due. Suggs f ound onl y a part i cl e i ndi cat i ve of guns hotr es i due on the bac k of

G al es ’ s l ef

tha nd; how ever , he w as unabl e t o “i dent i f y i tas guns hotr es i due to th e e x c lu s io n o f a ll o th e r e n v ir o n m e n ta l s o u rc e s .” ¶9. T he morni ng af

t erG al es ’ s arr es t , of

f i cer s f ound a bl ack hoodi e and a Sm i th & W es s on handgun i n a n a l l ey nearN or th H arvey and B l and St r eet , ne arw her e G al es w as det ai ned. T he handgun a nd a s pents hel l cas i ng f ound atthe cr i m e sc ene w er e se ntt o the cr i m e l ab f or c o m p a riso n . F o re n sic sc ien tist B ria n M c In tire d e ter m in e d th a t th e b u llet fire d a t th e H y a tt F o o d M a rt h a d b e e n fire d fro m th e d isc o v e re d p isto l. ¶ 1 0 . G a les w a s in d icte d fo r tw o c o u n ts o f a rm e d ro b b e ry a n d o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c y to c o m m it arm e d ro b b e ry . G a les filed a m o tio n to su p p re ss a ll ev id e n c e ste m m in g fro m h is unr eas onabl e s ear ch and s ei zur e. A hear i ng w as hel d on the mo t i on , aft erw hi ch the tr i al

### 5

cou rtenter ed an order deny i ng the m oti on and fi nd i ng that O ff i cer T ho m as’ s st op and fr i sk o f G ales w as p rop er u n d er T erry . T he tr i al courtgr ant ed a di r ect ed ver di cton one countof arm ed r obbery. A j ury convi ct ed G al es on the r emai ni ng count s of arm ed r obbery and con spi racy, an d the tr i al cou rtsent enced him t o li fe i m pri sonm ent and fi ve y ears , r es pect i vel y, w i th t he s ent ence s t o run concurr ent l y. G al es appea l ed. DI S CU S S I ON ¶11 . F or the sake of organizat i on , G al es’ s argum ents hav e been divi d ed i nto fi ve is sues. T he f i r s tt hr ee i s s ues concern al l eged i m pr opr i et i es as t o the T er r y s t op, G al es ’ s arr es t , and the re cit ati o n o f Mir anda w arni ngs , r es pect i vel y, w hi l e the r emai ni ng t w o ar gum ent s f ocus o n the n arrati o n o f th e su rve il lanc e v ideo an d w h ethe r th ere w as leg al an d ev iden ti ary su ffic ien c y su p p o rtin g th e v e rd ict. I . W het her t he t ri al court err ed by ref usi ng t o s upp res s t he f rui t s of an i m p erm i ssi b l e st op an d an u n reason ab l e w arra n tl ess s earch of G ales , w hen t he s t at ed r eas on f or t he s t op w as t o conduct a T erry pat - down, but t he s earc h and s ei z ure of G ales di d not m eet t he cons t i t ut i onal p rereq u i si tes for t h e p oli ce off i cer’s acti on s. ¶12 . G al es ’ s fi rs ti ssue deals w i th w hetherO ff i cer Th om as pr oper l y per f orm ed a T

err y s t op i n det ai ni ng G al es . Forthe s ake of cl ar i ty, the i s s ue has been subdi vi ded i nt o t hr ee pa r t s : ( a) th e in iti a l T

erry s t op, ( b) the T

er r y pat - dow n, and ( c) the cont i nued det ai nm entand s ear ch of G al es f ol l ow i ng the T

erry s t op. ¶ 1 3 . T h e C o u rt a p p lie s a m ix e d s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w to F o u rt h -A m e n d m e n t c la im s . E addy v. S ta te , 63 So. 3d 1209, 1212 ( ¶ 11) ( M i s s . 2011) ( ci t i ng D ies v. S ta te , 926 So. 2d 910, 917 ( M i s s . 2006) ) . “W hetherpr obabl e ca us e orr eas onabl e sus pi ci on exi s t s i s s ubj ectt o a de
novo r evi ew . B utthe C our tl i m i t s the de novo review of th e tr ial co u rt ’s de term ination to

### 6

h is to ri c a l f

a c ts re v ie w e d u n d e r t h e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a n d c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s s ta n d a rd s .” I d. ( emphasi s added) (c i t at i ons om i t t ed) . W hen r evi ew i ng evi dent i ary rul i ngs m ade by a tr i al c o u rt , th e C o u rt e m p lo y s a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . B ro w n v. S ta te , 965 So. 2d 1023, 1026 ( ¶ 10) ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng P e ters o n v . S ta te , 6 7 1 S o . 2 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ),
over r ul ed on othergr ounds by Ca ldw e ll v. S ta te , 6 S o . 3 d 1 0 7 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 )). “[T h e] C o u rt m us tf i r s tde t erm i ne i f

the pr operl egal s t andar ds w er e appl i ed. ” I d. “W her e err ori nvol ves th e a d m iss io n o r e x c lu sio n o f e v id e n c e , [th e ] C o u rt w ill n o t re v e rse u n les s th e e rro r a d v e rse ly aff ect s a sub st ant i al r i ghtof a party. ” L a dn ierv. S ta te , 87 8 S o. 2d 92 6, 93 3 (¶ 27 ) ( M i ss. 2004) ( quot i ng W

hitten v. Cox , 7 9 9 S o . 2 d 1 , 1 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 )) . A . T he I nitial Stop ¶14. Fi r s t , G al es ar gues thatO f f i cerT hom as di d nothave a “r eas onabl e s us pi ci on” t o s t op G al es , a s O f

f i cerThom as w as r es pondi ng t o the i ni t i al , i nacc ur at e des cr i pt i on, w hic h des cr i bed a bl ack mal e w ear i ng a bl ue shi r t , bl ack pant s , and a w hi t e hoodi e. T he des cr i pt i on al s o s t at ed thatthe s us pect s w er e hea ded i n the di r ect i on of Bel l e A i r e Str eet ; how ever , G al es w as not w al king i n thatdir ecti o n . Itsh o uld be no t ed thati n G al es’ s m oti on t o sup press , w hi ch the tr i al courtdeni ed, G al es concede d t hat“the G r eenvi l l e Pol i ce D epart m enthad the
r i ghtt o st op a nd qu e s t i on the de f e nd a nt , a nd e ve n the r i gh tt o c on du c ta pa t - do w n f or w eapons . ” A ccor di ngl y, the i s s ue of w hetherO f

f i cerT hom as had l egal gr ounds t o conduct the T er r y sto p o f G a les in th e first p lac e w a s c o n c e d e d a n d n o t ar g u e d b e fo re th e trial c o u rt. “Fai l ur e t o r ai s e an i s s ue attr i al ba r s c ons i der at i on on an appel l at e l evel . ” W a lk e r v . S ta te , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 9 8 , 2 1 7 (¶ 4 9 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); see al so J o h n so n v. S ta te , So. 3d , 2014 W L

### 7

9 7 1 5 4 2 , * 4 (¶ 6 ) ( M iss . M a r. 1 3 , 2 0 1 4 ). R e g a rd les s, th e C o u rt w ill p ro c e e d w ith a n a n a ly sis of the s t op and pat - dow n. ¶15 . In resp o n se, the S tat e arg u es that G al es ess enti al l y is at t acking O ff i cer T ho m as’s cr edi bi l i ty. Fur ther , t he St at e not es t hatt he t r i al cour tsi t s as the f i nderof f actats uppr es s i on hear i ngs and t hus i s s ol el y r es pons i bl e f ordet erm i ni ng w i tnes s cr edi bi l i ty and r es ol vi ng any conf l i ct s i n the evi dence, ci t i ng G la sp e r v . S ta te , 9 1 4 S o . 2 d 7 0 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e S tate cont ends t hatO f

f i cerT hom as had a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op G al es beca us e ( 1) he w as s p o t t e d mi n u t e s a f

t e ra n a r me d r o b b e ry a n d o n l y a b o u tf i v e b l o c k s a wa y f

r o m th e c r i me s cene ; ( 2) he part i al l y m at ched the des cr i pt i on of one of t he r obber s ; and (3) he w as runni ng and app eared nervou s. ¶16. “Pol i ce of

f i cer s m ay det ai n a per s on fora bri ef , i nves t i gat ory s t op cons i s t entw i th the Four th A m endmentw hen t he of f i cer s have ‘ r eas onabl e sus pi ci on, grounde d i n spec i f i c and art i cul abl e f

act s . . . ’ thatal l ow s the of f i cer s t o concl ude the s us pecti s w ant ed i n connec t i on w i th cr i m i nal behavi or . ” E addy , 63 So. 3d at1 21 3 (¶ 14 ) ( ci t i ng W a lk e r v . S ta te , 881 So. 2 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 )); see al so T e rr y v. O h io , 392 U . S. 1 ( 1968) . B as ed on the evi dence i n the r ecor d, the tr i al courti n the ca s e s ub j udi ce di d noterri n f i ndi ng thatO f

f i cerT hom as h a d fo rm e d a rea so n ab le su sp ici o n in h is de tention o f G ales. G ales w as in the im m ed iate vi ci ni ty of

the cr i m e s cene s oon af t erthe r obbery, part i al l y m at ched the des cr i pt i on of one of the r obber s , and appe ar ed nervous . O ff i cerT hom as ’ s s us pi ci ons w er e f ur therpi qued
w hen G al es , w ho w as w ear i ng cas ual s hoes , s t opped runni ng w hen he not i ced O f f i cer T h o m a s’s p re se n c e . B a se d o n th e a b o v e fa c ts, O ffic e r T h o m a s’s a c tio n s w e re g ro u n d e d in a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on thatG al es w as connec t ed w i th the arm ed r obbery.

### Th ere are some d iscrepan cies as to what O fficer Th omas saidto G ales to p romp t him 2 

### to rem ove the m oney f

rom his pocke t. At the supp res si on hearing, Of fi ce r Thom as st at ed that h e askedGales what was in h is po cket. L ater during the h earing , Officer T ho mas seems to s ay that

Gal es si mply re move d themone y af te r the pat- down, wi thout Off ic er Thoma s as king anything. At

tri al , Off ic er Thom as t es ti fi ed that he had se en mone y hanging out of Gal es ’s pocke t, prom

pting him to a sk Ga le s “ Why do you haveal l t his mone y?”Gal es the n produc ed the m oney and claimed hewon it from gambl ing. Regardl es s of whic h ac count is themos t a cc urate , the tri alcourt f ound, relying o n Off

ic er Thoma s’ s t es timony at t he suppres si on hearing, that

Gal es volunt arily had produce d themone y.

8 B . O ff i cer T h om as’s T err y Pa t

-Do wn ¶17. Second, G al es ar gues that , even as s um i ng O f f i cer T hom as had r eas onabl e s us pi ci on init ial ly t o stop G ales, O ffi ce r T h o m as e x ce ed ed the s co p e o f T erry by or der i ng G al es t o t ake
m oney outof

hi s pocket , know i ng t hati tw as nota w eapon. G al es ar gues thats uch a s ear ch vi ol at es the “pl ai n f

eel ” doct ri ne enunci at ed by the Supr eme C our ti n Minnesota v. D i ckers on , 5 0 8 U . S . 36 6 , 37 5 -76 (19 9 3 ) ( “If a p o li ce o ffi ce r l aw full y p ats d o w n a su sp ec t’ s o u ter c lo th in g a n d fe e ls a n o b jec t w h o se c o n to u r o r m a ss m a k e s its id e n tity im m e d iate ly appar ent. . . i t s w arr ant l es s s ei zur e w oul d be j us t i f i ed by the s ame pr act i cal cons i der at i ons that inh ere in the p lai n -view co n text. ”). T h e S tat e arg u es that G ales m isco n stru es th e re co rd and quot es O f

f i cerT ho m as ’ s s t at ementatthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng: “w hen I f el tthatbul ge in h is p o c k e t, I d id n ’t k n o w if it w a s a k n if e o r s o m e th in g w ra p p e d u p in s o m e th in g .” A ccor di ng t o the St at e as w el l as the t r i al cour t ’ s fa ctual f i ndi ngs , O f

f i cerT hom as then as ked G al es w hatw as i n hi s poc ket , a nd G al es vol unt ar i l y pul l ed the money out , cl ai m i ng he had j us tw on i tgambl i ng. B eca us e G al es vol unt ar i l y s how ed O f f i cerT hom as the money, G al es 2
n o lo n g e r h a d a “ re a so n a b le e x p e c tatio n o f p riv a c y ” a s to th e m o n e y u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. K

at zv. U nited States , 3 8 9 U . S . 3 4 7 , 3 5 9 (19 6 7 ) (H arlan , J. co n cu rri n g ).

### 9

O f f i cerT hom as ’ s s us pi ci on s w er e pi qued, r es ul t i ng i n hi s r eques t i ng a f r es h des cr i pt i on, w hich w as m ore accurat e and part i al l y m at ched G al es. ¶18. “The r at i onal e under l yi ng the T erry s t op is the protect i on o f the of f i cer . ” E l

lis v. S ta te , 573 So. 2d 724, 725 ( M i s s . 1990) . T o thate f f ect , the U . S. Supr eme C our thas s ai d that th e se a rc h “ m u st th e re fo re b e c o n fin e d in sc o p e to a n in tru sio n r e a so n a b ly d e sig n e d to d is c o v e r g u n s , k n iv e s , c lu b s , o r o th e r h id d e n in s tru m e n ts f o r th e a s s a u lt o f t h e p o lic e o ff ic e r.” T erry , 392 U . S. at29. “W hen an obj ecti s s of tordoes notr eas onabl y re s embl e a w eapon, the T erry a n a ly s is d o e s n o t j u s tif y r e m o v in g it f

ro m th e s u s p e c t’ s c lo th in g a n d s e a rc h in g it.” E lli s , 5 7 3 S o . 2 d a t 7 2 5 (c itin g 3 W . L a fa v e , Sea rch an d S eizure § 9 . 4 (b) (2 d ed . 1 9 8 7 )). It i s not ew or thy that , unl i ke i n the ca s e sub j udi ce , the pol i ce of f i ceri n E lli

s t es t i f i ed thathe had s us pect ed the obj ecthe f el tdur i ng the T

erry pat - dow n t o be drugs and di d nott es t i f y t hat h e w a s c o n c e rn e d a b o u t a c o n c e a le d w e a p o n . I d. A ddi t i onal l y, “[ s ] i nce T erry , [ the U . S. Supr eme C our thas ] hel d r epea t edl y thatm er e pol i ce que s t i oni ng does notcon st i tut e a s ei zur e. ” Flor ida v. B os tick , 5 0 1 U .S . 4 2 9 , 4 3 4 (1 9 9 1 ); see al so U n ited S tates v. S h ab azz , 9 9 3 F . 2 d 4 3 1 , 4 3 6 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). ¶1 9. H er e, O f

f i cerTho mas was p ur s ui ng a n a r med r ob be ry s us pe c twho w as l as t s een br andi shi ng a pi s t ol . O f f i cerT hom as had r eas on t o bel i eve thatG al es m i ghthave be en arm ed, nece s s i t at i ng a f r i s k of hi s per s on. W hi l e O f

f i cerT hom as di d notf

eel anythi ng t hat
w as im m ed iat ely re co g n izab le as a w ea p o n , h e fe lta u n k n o w n b u lge in G ales’s p o ck et, pr om pt i ng conce r n f

orh i s saf

ety. D es pi t e hi s conce rn, O f f i cerT hom as di d nots ear ch G al es’ s pock etbu tm erel y asked w hat w as i n it . G al es volunt ari ly em pti ed h i s pock et s, s how ed t he m oney t o O f f i cerT hom as , and cl ai m ed t hathe had w on i tgambl i ng. B as ed on

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436 ( 1966). 3 

### 10 th e se fa c ts, th e trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in fin d in g th a t O ffic e r T h o m a s c o n stitu tio n a lly per f or m ed a T

erry pat - dow n. C . G ales ’s Continued D etainm ent and O f f i cerA r endale’s Conduct ¶ 2 0 . G a les a lso a rg u e s th a t h is c o n tin u e d d e tain m e n t a fte r O ffic e r T h o m a s h a n d c u ffe d h im an d O ffi ce r A ren d ale’s sea rch es ex ce ed ed the s co p e o f T erry . G al es al t ernat i vel y ar gued at the s uppr es s i on hear i ng thathe w as arr es t ed w hen O f f i cerT ho m as handcuf

f ed hi m and br oughthi m t o the cr i m e s cene , and the of f i cer s s houl d have Mir andi z ed G al es att he poi nt 3 of ar r es t . I n i t s bri ef

, t he St at e di d notre s pond t o the al l eged T erry vi ol at i ons s t emm i ng f r om O f f i cerA r endal e’ s conductotherthan s ayi ng thati tw as “j us t i f i ed and per m i s s i bl e. ” The St at e further ar gues thatO f f i cerT hom as ’ s encount erw i th G al es w as a T erry st op ; t hu s, O f f i cerT hom as w as notr equi r ed t o Miran diz e G a les a s h e w a s n o t y e t u n d e r a rre st. ¶21. A f

t erthe hear i ng on G al es ’ s mot i on t o s uppr es s , t he tr i al cou rtenter ed an or der denyi ng the mot i on an d fi nd i ng thatO f f i cerT hom as ’ s s t op and pat - dow n of G al es w as p rop er u n d er T

erry . W h i l e th e o r d e rme n t i o n e d th a tOf f i c e rTh o ma s t o o k Ga l e s t o th e c r i me sce n e, i t did n o t ana lyze the fa ct un d er T erry . T h e o rde r r efe ren ce d O ffic e r A ren d ale’s t aki ng pi ctur es of

the money butf

ai l ed t o m ent i on hi s empt yi ng G al es ’ s pocket . T he or der sta ted th a t “ O ffic e r J e re m y A re n d a le tes tified th e a c c u se d w a s a rre ste d w h e n a sta m p e d b ill
w a s c o n fi rm e d b y th e o w n e r t o b e o n e o f h is s to le n b ills .” ¶22. W hi l e the C our t agr ees w i th the tr i al court ’ s or der that O f f i cer T hom as ’ s i ni t i al s t op and pat - dow n w as pr oper , upon de novo re v iew , the trial c o u rt e rre d in re stric tin g its a n a ly sis

### 11

t o the i ni t i al s t op and notf ur theranal yzi ng G al es ’ s pr ol onged det ai nm entand s ear ches by O ffic e r A re n d a le. T h e U .S . S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t T erry se a rc h e s a re “ c o n fin e d in s cope t o an int rusi on r eas onabl y des i gned t o di s coverguns , kni ves , cl ubs , orotherhi dden i ns trum ent s f

ort he ass aul tof

t he pol i ce of

f i cer . ” T erry , 392 U . S. at29. O f f i cerT hom as alread y h ad co n d u cted a p rop er T erry s ear ch, concl udi ng thatG al es w as unarm ed and ha d onl y m oney i n hi s pocket s . W hi l e an a ddi t i onal s ear ch m ay hav e been j us t i f i ed t o f ur ther en s ur e of

f i c e r s ’ s a f e ty, O f f i c e rA r e nd a l e di d n otpa t - do w n Gal e s f orw e a po ns bu ti ns t ead to o k m o n e y fro m h is p o c k e ts a n d sh o w e d it t o W e b e r, w h o re c o g n ize d th e sta m p e d b ill . ¶ 2 3 . O ffic e r T h o m a s’s c o n tin u e d d e tain m e n t o f G a les a n d O ffic e r A re n d a le’ s c o n d u c t in t aki ng G al es ’ s m oney ar e notcongruentw i th T erry . G a l e s was i n c us t od y, h a vi ng be en hand c uf f e d a nd p l a c e d i n a p ol i c e c rui s e r . The o f f i c e r s h a d a mpl e t i me t o a t t ai n a s ear ch
w arr ant, w hich w ou l d hav e m ade O ff i cer A rendal e’s act i on s decis i vely pr op er. R egardl ess, the tr i al cou rtcor r ect l y det erm i ned O f f i cerA r endal e’ s act i ons w er e “j us t i f i ed and perm i s s i bl e, ” al though pot ent i al l y undera di f f er entr at i onal e, as G al es no l onger ha d a “r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy” af

t erhe vol unt ar i l y s how ed O f f i cerT hom as hi s m oney. K a tz , 3 8 9 U .S . a t 3 6 0 . See a l so D ies v. S ta te , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d 9 1 0 , 9 1 8 (¶¶ 2 3 -24 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). A l t ernat i vel y, i f

the of f i cer s det erm i ned thatpr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed f ol l ow i ng O f

f i cer T ho m as’ s T

erry p a t-d o w n , the o ffic e rs c o u ld h a v e a rre ste d h im a t th a t p o in t, po ten tially a llo w in g th e o ffic e rs to c o n d u c t a s e a rc h in c id e n t t o a rr e st. H o w e v e r, O ffic e r A re n d a le t es t i f i ed thathe di d notarr es tG al es unt i l af t erW eberi dent i f

i ed the s t amped bi l l . A s G al es argues , “i f

A r endal e had pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tbas ed on w hathe l earned f ol l owi ngt he

### 12

s ear ch atthe Food M art[ thatW eberr ecogni zed the bi l l ] , then cl ear l y he di d nothave p ro b a b le c a u s e to s e a rc h [G a le s ] w h e n [h e ] ar r i ved a t th e s c e n e w ith T h o m a s .” ¶24. T he tr i al courterr ed i n f i ndi ng thatG al es w as notarr es t ed unt i l the bi l l w as conf i r m ed b y W e b e r to b e o n e o f th e sto len b ill s. W h e n O ffic e r T h o m a s h a n d c u ffe d G a les , p lac e d h im i n hi s crui s er , and tr ans por t ed hi m t o a notherl ocat i on, G al es w as “ ef f ect i vel y s ei zed f

orthe purpos es of

the Four th A m endment . T hes e ci r cumst ance s s ur el y amount t o a s how of of f i ci al a u th o ri ty s u c h th a t a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n w o u ld h a v e b e lie v e d h e w a s n o t f re e to le a v e .” Flor ida v. R oyer , 460 U . S. 491, 501- 02 ( 1983) ( quot i ng U n itedS ta tes v. Me n de n h a ll , 446 U . S. 544, 554 ( 1980) ) . B eca us e hi s det ai nm entw oul d qual i f y as a Four th A m endment s ei zur e, the arr es t i ng of f i cer s w er e r equi r ed ei thert o at t ai n a se ar ch w arr antort o f i nd an app l i cable excepti on t o the w arr ant r equ i rem ent i n o rdert o search G al es. ¶25. B eca us e O f

f i cer A r endal e’ s s ub sequent s ear ches of G al es pr i or t o hi s bei ng pl ace d
u n d er a rrest m ay h av e e x ce ed ed the s co p e o f T erry , w e m u st al so an alyz e w h ethe r G ales’s arr es tand s ubs equents ear ches w er e l egal l y j us t i f i ed. I I . W het h er, as s um i ng t hat G al es w as arre s t ed w hen O f f i cer T hom as p l aced hi m i n hi s p oli ce cruis er, O ff i cer T h om as h ad p rob ab l e cau se to a rr est G a les a n d O ffi ce r A re n d a le h a d a p ro p er b a sis to co n d u ct a warr ant l e s s s e ar c h of

G al e s ’ s pe r s on. A . P roba ble Cau se ¶2 6 . B efo re an alyz ing w h ethe r O ffi ce r A ren d ale’s sea rch of G ales w as p rop er, the C o u rt m u st firs t d e ter m in e w h e th e r p ro b a b le c a u se e x iste d to p lac e G a les u n d e r a rre st. “ P ro b a b le caus e exi s t s w hen the f

act s and ci r cumst ance s w i thi n a n of f i cer ’ s know l edge orof

w hi ch he has r eas onabl e trus tw or thy i nf or m at i on, ar e s uf

f i ci enti n themsel ves t o j us t i f y a man of

### 13

aver age c aut i on i n bel i ef thata cr i m e has be en comm i t t ed and thata part i cul ari ndi vi dual has comm i t t ed i t . ” H

a ll v. S ta te , 455 So. 2d 1303, 1304 ( M i s s . 1984) ( ci t i ng Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 2 6 3 S o . 2 d 5 6 6 (M is s . 1 9 7 2 )) . T he tes tforprob ab le cau se i s not r edu ci ble t o “p reci se def i ni t i on orquant i f

i cat i on. ” Ma ry la n d

v. P rin g le , 5 4 0 U . S . 3 6 6 , 3 7 1 (20 0 3 ). “Fi nel y tuned s t andar ds s uch as pr oof beyond a r eas onabl e doubtorby a pr eponder ance of the evi dence .

. . hav e no pl ace i n the [ pr obabl e- caus e] deci s i on. ” I l linois v. G ates , 462 U . S. 213, 235 ( 1983) . “A l l [ the U . S. Supr eme C our tha s ] r equi r ed i s the ki nd of ‘ f ai rpr obabi l i ty’ on w hi ch

‘ r eas onabl e and prudent[ peopl e, ] notl egal t echni ci ans , act . ’ ” Flo rida v. H a rr is , 1 3 3 S .C t. 1050, 1055 ( 2013) ( quot i ng G ates , 4 6 2 U . S . at 23 8 , 2 3 1 )). ¶ 2 7 . H e re , O ffic e r T h o m a s re sp o n d e d to d isp a tch ’s d e sc rip tio n o f a rm e d ro b b e ry su sp e c ts i n t he vici ni ty of

the H yattFood M art . W hi l e the i ni t i al des cr i pt i on of the s us pectw as in a c c u ra te, O ffic e r T h o m a s n o tice d a su sp icio u s in d iv id u a l ru n n in g a w a y fr o m th e H y a tt Food M art . O f

f i cerT hom as saw t hatthe man began w al ki ng upon not i ci ng pol i ce pr es ence . O f f i cerT hom as pr oper l y per f or m ed a T

erry st op an d pat- do w n o f G al es. W hi l e G al es w as det ai ned, O f

f i cerT hom as not i ced thathe w as sw eat i ng, appear ed nervous , and w as w ear i ng l i ghtcl othi ng on a col d D ece m berni ght . G al es vol unt ar i l y s how ed O f f i cerT hom as w ads of m o n e y , w h ich h e c laim e d h e h a d w o n g a m b lin g . O ffic e r T h o m a s th e n a sk e d d isp a tch to r epea tthe des cr i pt i on of the s us pect . D i s pat ch then had a m or e ac cur at e des cr i pt i on of t he s us pect , des cr i bi ng an indi vidual w i th a bl ack hoodi e, l i ghtbl ue j eans , and br ow n cas ual s hoes . G al es m at ched the des cr i pt i on, otherthan the bl ack hoodi e.

### 14

¶28. B as ed on the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s , ther e w as m or e than enough i nf or m at i on f o ra r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n t o a s c e r t a i n a f a i rp r o b a b i l i ty th a tGa l e s h a d j u s tc o mmi t t e d t h e c r i me in q u esti o n . O ffi ce r T h o m as’s a rrest of G ales w as p rop er. B. Exce pti ons to t

he W ar r ant Requir e m e nt ¶2 9 . W e re turn to the q u esti o n o f w h ethe r O ffi ce r A ren d ale’s su b seq u en t search o f G ales’s pocket s and sei zur e of

t he m oney w i thi n w er e pr operi n the abs ence of a w arr ant . “Sear ches c o n d u c ted w ith o u t w a rra n ts h a v e b e e n h e ld u n law fu l ‘n o tw ith sta n d in g fa c ts u n q u e stio n a b ly sh o w in g p ro b ab le ca u se,’ A gnel lo v. U nited States , 26 9 U. S. 20 , 33 , [ ( 19 25 ) ] . . . f ort he C ons t i tut i on r equi r es ‘thatthe del i ber at e, i m part i al j udgm entof a j udi ci al of

f i cer. . . be i nt erpos ed betw een the ci t i zen a nd the pol i ce . . . . ’ ” K atzv. U n i ted States , 389 U . S. 347, 357 ( 1967) ( quot i ng W

ong Su n v. U

nited States , 371 U . S. 471, 481-82 (19 63 )) . Sear ches conduct ed w i thouta w arr anta r e deemed “ pers e unr eas onabl e underthe Four th A m endment – s ubj ectonl y t o a f

ew s peci f

i cal l y es t abl i s hed and w el l - del i neat ed exc ept i ons . ” I d. ¶30. D es pi t e not havi ng a w arrant , O ff i cer A rendal e’ s s ear ch of G al es ’ s m oney di d not vi ol at e the Four th A m endment . W hen G al es vol unt ar i l y t ook outhi s m oney and demonstr at ed i tt o O f

f i cerT hom as , G al es ext i ngui s hed hi s “r eas onabl e ex pect at i on of p ri v ac y ” a s to the m o n ey , just as w h en il lega l co n tr ab an d i s in p lai n v iew o f a p o li ce o ffi ce r. D ies v. S ta te , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d 9 1 0 , 9 1 8 ( ¶ ¶ 2 3 - 2 4 ) ( M i s s . 2 0 0 6 ) . As th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C o u rt h a s s tate d , “o n c e p o lice a re law fu lly in a p o sitio n to o b se rv e a n item first-h a n d , it s ow ner ’ s pr i vacy i nt er es ti n thati t em is los t. . . . ” I l linois v. A ndre as , 463 U . S. 765, 771 ( 1983) . A l t ernat i vel y, i f G al es di d notr el i nqui s h hi s cons t i tut i onal l y pr ot ect ed expe ct at i on

### 15

of pr i vacy, O f

f i cerA r endal e’ s conductal t ernat i vel y fa l l s underan except i on t o the w arr ant re q u ire m e n t. ¶31. O ne exc ept i on t o the w arr antre qui r ementi s a sea r ch i nci dentt o arr es t , w hi ch has been deemed a r eas onabl e s ear ch perm i t t ed by the F our th A m endment , even w i thouta s ear ch
w a rr a n t. Ch im e l v. Ca lifo rn ia , 3 9 5 U .S . 7 5 2 (1 9 6 9 ), over r ul ed i n par tby Ari z ona v. G ant , 556 U. S. 3 32 ( 20 09 ) . “ U nd e rthe s e a r c h i nc i de ntt o a rr e s ts c e na r i o, p ol i c e may se ar ch t he a rre ste e ’s p e rs o n a n d ‘th e a re a “ w ith in h is im m e d iate c o n tro l” – c o n stru in g th a t p h ra se to m ea n the a rea w ith in w h ich h e m igh t gain p o sses sion o f a w ea p o n o r de stru cti b le ev iden ce . ’” U nited States v. Johnson , 846 F. 2d 279, 281 ( 5th C i r . 1988) ( quot i ng Chim el , 395 U . S. at 763) . “Law enf

or cementof

f i cer s m ay, pur s uantt o a val i d arr es t , s ear ch any c ont ai neron t he per s on orw i thi n hi s r eac h. ” Johnson , 846 F. 2d at282. H ow ever , the s ear ch m us tbe s u b s ta n tia lly c o n te m p o ra n e o u s w ith th e a rr e s t. I d. ¶32. W hat qual i f

i es as “s ubs t ant i al l y cont empora neous ” i s not contr ol l ed by a br i ght - l i ne tes t; h o w e v e r, th e F ifth C irc u it w ro te th a t th e “ se a rc h in c id e n t t o a n a rre st m u st b e re a so n a b ly cont empora neous t o thatarr es t , buti ti s a t es tof r eas onabl enes s i n l i gh to f t he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ance s thatmustbe appl i ed. ” U nited States v. Mas lanka , 5 0 1 F . 2 d 2 0 8 , 2 1 4 (5th C ir . 1974) ( ci t i ng Co o

p e r v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 5 8 (1 9 5 7 ); U nited States v. P r es ton , 37 6 U. S. 3 6 4 (1 9 6 4 )); see al

so U nited States v. E dw ar ds , 415 U . S. 800, 805- 06 (1974) ( s ear ch of d e fe n d a n t’s c lo th e s v a lidth o u g h c o n d u c ted ten h o u rs a fte r a rre st); C urd v. Cit y Court of J u d so n ia , 141 F. 3d 839, 843 ( 8th C i r . 1998) ( s ear ch of pur s e val i d w hen conduc t ed atpol i ce stat ion fi ft ee n m inu tes aft er de fen d an t w as a rrested at ho m e); Un ite d S ta te s v. Wil

lia ms , 416 F . 2 d 4 (5th C ir . 1 9 6 9 ) (ov erc o m ing o b jecti o n s to a n arrest-seizu re d elay o f nin e h o u rs).

### 16

¶33. H er e, O f

f i cerT hom as arr es t ed G a l es and i m m edi at el y br oughthi m t o the cr i m e s cene . T he r obbery occurr ed ar ound 10: 00 p. m . ; di s pat ch not i f i ed of f i cer s of the cr i m e at10: 02; and O ffic e r T h o m a s stop p ed G ales a t 10 :08 . Itis un clea r ho w lon g ittoo k O ffi ce r T h o m as to d riv e to th e c rim e sc e n e , b u t th e re c o rd s u g g e sts th a t it w a s s h o rtly a fte r h e p lac e d G a les in hi s crui s er . O f

f i cer s w er e s t i l l i nves t i gat i ng the r obbery, as evi dence d by thei rpr es ence at th e sc e n e . B rin g in g s u s p e c ts to th e c rim e sc e n e is n o t a s tan d a rd p o licy o f th e G re e n v ill e P oli ce D epart m ent; ho w ever, i thas occ urr ed in cert ai n si tuati on s. ¶34. T he r ecor d r ef

l ect s thatO f

f i cerA rendal e’s search o f G al es’ s pocke t s and m oney q u a lifies a s a se a rc h in c id e n t to a rre st. III. W h eth er th e tr ial co u rt e rr ed b y re fu sing to su p p re ss a n y state m en ts m ade by G al es pri or t o bei ng properl y Mir andi z ed . ¶35. N ext , G al es ar gues t hathe w as nott i m el y Mir andi z ed w he n he w as ar r es t ed. T he foll o w ing ex ch an g e, discu ssing w h en O ffi ce r T h o m as p lace d G ales into h is po li ce cru iser,
w as the onl y t i m e def

ens e couns el ques t i oned a w i tnes s – O f f i cerT hom as – conc erni ng Mir anda a t th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g : Q : B eg the C our t ’ s i ndul gence . D i d you Miran diz e h im a t an y p o in t? A : W h y w o u ld I Miran diz e hi m i f he w as n’ tpl ace d underarr es tby m e? B Y T H E C O U R T : Si r , you can e i thers ay yes orno. Q : Y o u d id n ’t? A : N o. Q : Y o u d id n ’t Mir andi

z e h i m? A: No , b e c a u s e I d i d n ’ ta r r e s th i m. Q : I se e . I b e liev e th a t’s a ll. A ft er the supp res si on h eari ng , the t ri al co urten t ered an order deny i ng the m oti on t o sup press . T h e o rd e r sta ted tha t G a les w a s a rre ste d w h e n th e sta m p e d b ill w a s c o n firm e d b y W e b e r to be o ne o f hi s bi l l s and thatG al es then w as broug ht t o the poli ce st at i on and read hi s Mir anda

### 17

r i ght s . T he or derdi d notc i t e any l aw conce rni ng Mir anda ; i ns t ead, i tf ocus ed on the al l eged T erry vi ol at i ons . T he or derconcl uded by s t at i ng the f ol l ow i ng: F u rth e rm o re , th e a c c u se d v o lu n tar ily re m o v e d th e item fro m h is b a c k p o c k e t. N o act i on orconductt aken by thi s of f i cerw as “s uf

f i ci ent l y del i ber at e thatthe excl us i on can meani ngf ul l y det eri t , an d s uf

f i ci ent l y cul pabl e thats uch det err ence i s w or th the pr i ce pa i d by the j us t i ce s ys t em. ” The of f i cer ’ s act i on w as good pol i ce w or k, notcul pabl e con du ctw hi ch mustbe det err ed by the excl us i onary rul e. ¶36. I n hi s br i ef

, G al es ar gues thatO f

f i cerT hom as vi ol at ed Mir anda b y q u e stio n in g h im aboutthe s our ce of

hi s m oney. O ff

i cer Thom as ques t i oned G al es aboutthe money dur i ng the T er r y s t op, w hi ch w as j us tb efor e G al es a rr es t ed. G al es vol unt ar i l y s how ed O f f i cer T h o m as h is m o n e y , claim ing h e h ad w o n itg am b li n g . F u rth erm o re, no thing in the rec o rd i ndi c a t e s tha tG a l e s s a i d a ny thi ng a ta l l a f t e rhe w a s pl a c e d i n Of f i c e rThomas ’ s pol i ce c ru ise r, m u c h les s a n y th in g inc rim in a tin g . A c c o rd in g to O ffic e r A re n d a le, G a les v o lu n tar ily g o t o u t o f th e p o lice c ru is e r w h e n b ro u g h t to th e c rim e sc e n e , b u t th e re c o rd is s ilen t as to any thing G al es s ai d betw een t he t i m e of arres tand the ti m e he w as r ead h i s Mir anda ri gh t s. ¶37. T he C our t has s t at ed that “[ e] ven i n a cas e w her e a vi ol at i on i s demonstr at ed t o have actual l y occurr ed, . . . i tw i l l be cons i der ed harm l es s err ori f the w hol e r ecor d demonstr at es beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthati tw as w i thoutany s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ci al ef f ectunderal l of the f act s and ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” Co o ley v. S ta te , 391 So. 2d 614, 623 ( M i s s . 1980) ( ci t i ng U nited States v. W

hitaker , 592 F. 2d 826 ( 5th C i r . 1979) ) . H er e, i ti s noteven c l ear thatther e w as a Mir anda viol at i on, and the r ecor d does notdemonstr at e any pot ent i al pr ej udi ce, beca us e the r ecor d does nots t at e w hat , i f a nythi ng, G al es s ai d dur i ng the per i od in q u e stio n . F u rth e r, th e C o u rt lim its its re v iew to th e h isto ric a l fa c ts d e ter m in e d a t trial.

### 18

¶ 3 8 . T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d isc re tio n in d e ter m in in g th a t th e e x c lu sio n a ry ru le s houl d notappl y. A s the tr i al courts ai d i n i t s or der , O f f i cer s Thom as and A r endal e di d not d eli b era tel y ac t i n su ch a w ay that the e x clus ion ary rule w o u ld d eter su ch futu re b eh av ior. T h e o ffi ce rs w ere m ist ak en as to w h en G ales w as a rrested ; ho w e v e r, no thing in the rec o rd s ugges t s G al es s ai d anythi ng af t erbei ng ar r es t ed, m uch l es s thathe w as i nt err ogat ed, w hi ch is r eq u ir ed for Mir anda to a p p ly . Mir anda , 3 8 4 U .S . at 4 3 9 . T h e re fo re , th e trial c o u rt d id noterri n r ef

us i ng t o s uppr es s G al es ’ s s t at ement s pr i ort o hi s bei ng Mir andi z ed . ¶ 3 9 . A d d itio n a lly , G a les d id n o t d isc u ss a t trial o r in h is b rie f w h e th e r O ffic e r A re n d a le
m ay have vi ol at ed Mir anda . The Cour tc on s i s t e nt l y h a s he l d tha ta l l eged Mir anda
v io la tio n s ra is e d fo r th e fir s t tim e o n a p p e a l a re p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . S to n e v. S ta te , 94 So. 3 d 1 0 7 8 , 1 0 8 2 (¶ 1 2 ) (M iss . 2 0 1 2 ); s ee al s o S ta rrv. S ta te , 997 So. 2d 262, 266 ( ¶¶ 8- 10) ( M i s s . Ct . App. 2 00 8) . Thus , t o the e xt e nttha tGal e s n ow al l eges a Mir anda vi ol at i on comm i t t ed by O f

f i cerA r endal e, s uch an ar gum enti s , al t ernat i vel y, proc edur al l y bar r ed. T he i s s ue i s w i thoutm er i t , or , al t ernat i vel y, pr ocedur al l y barr ed. IV . W h eth er th e tr ial co u rt e rr ed w h en it fail ed to su stain G a les’s obj ect i on t o O f

f i cer A rendal e’ s n arra t i ve of t he vi deo s urvei l l ance r e c or di ng when t he ori gi nalvi de o was av ai l abl e i n vi ol at i on o f t he bes t evi dence rul e. ¶40. I n hi s next i s s ue, G al es ar gues that O ff i cer A r endal e’ s narr at i on of the s ur vei l l ance vi deo pr i ort o i t s bei ng s how n t o t he j ury w as pl ai n er r orand vi ol at ed the bes tevi dence rul e. G a les a lso a rg u e s th a t O ffic e r A re n d a le’ s tes tim o n y in v a d e d th e p ro v in c e o f th e ju ry a s fa c tf i nder s , as he made f

actual det erm i nat i ons of the eve nt s occurr i ng i n the vi deo.

### 19

¶ 4 1 . T h e S tate c o u n te rs th a t t h e b e s t e v id e n c e ru le p ro v id e s o n ly th a t “A d u p lica te is admi s s i bl e t o the s ame ext entas an or i gi nal unl es s ( 1) a genui ne ques t i on i s r ai s ed as t o t he a uthe nt i c i ty o f

the or i gi na l or( 2) i n the c i r c ums t a nc e s i tw ou l d b e un f a i rt o a dmi tt he du pli cat e i n li eu o f the ori ginal . ” M i ss. R . E vid. 10 03 . T he S t at e al so no t es that the b est e v id e n c e ru le p e rt a in s o n ly to d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e . Q u in n v. S ta te , 479 So. 2d 706, 709 ( M i s s . 1985) . I ti s p erm i s s i bl e f ora w i tnes s t o narr at e vi deo evi dence w hen the narr at i on si m ply descri bes w hat i s occurri ng i n the vi deo , bu t i ti s i m perm i ssi ble i f the w i tness “att empt s t o pl ace hi s ow n s ubj ect i ve i nt erpr et at i on of event s t r ans pi r i ng i n the vi deo bas ed on nothi ng beyond the w i tnes s ’ s ow n i ns pect i on of the cont ent s of

the vi deot ape. ” P ulliam v. S ta te , 873 So. 2d 124, 127 ( ¶ 18) ( M i s s . Ct . A pp. 2004) . H ow ever , the St at e cont ends t hat G al es di d notas s erts uch an obj ect i on attr i al ; thus the ar gum enti s w ai ved. E ven i f t he a rg u m e n t w a s n o t w a iv e d , th e S tate a rg u e s th a t O ffic e r A re n d a le’ s n a rra tio n c o n sis ted o n ly of s ayi ng thata man sa i d “good ni ght ” and a des cr i pt i on of w hatthe r obber s w er e w ear i ng, nei therof

w hi ch i s a “s ubj ect i ve i nt erpr et at i on” of w hathappene d. ¶42 . T he C o u rt“ retains the inh ere n t au thori ty to noti ce err or t o p reventthe m anif est m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce, des pi t e tr i al couns el ’s fai l ure t o pr es erve the err or . ” A lp h a G u lf Coas t , I nc. v. Jacks on , 801 So. 2d 709, 727 ( ¶ 60) ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng Johnson v. Far go , 604 So. 2d 306, 311 ( M i s s . 1992) ) . H ow ever , “[ i ] ti s w el l - s ett l ed thati s s ues pr es ent ed f or the f i r s tt i m e on a ppeal a r e pr ocedur al l y ba rr ed f r om cons i der at i on. ” L e w is v . Fo re st Fa m ily Pr a c ti c e Clin i c, P. A. , 1 2 4 S o . 3 d 6 5 4 , 6 5 8 (¶ 1 6 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 3 ).

### 20

¶43. Fi r s t , the tr i al court di d not err i n overrul i ng def ens e couns el ’ s obj ect i on, w hi ch w as b ase d so lely o n the b est ev iden ce rule. T h e b est ev iden ce rule a p p li es to d o cu m en tary e v id e n c e a n d is c o n c e rn e d w ith th e a u th e n tic ity o f s u c h e v id e n c e . Q uinn , 479 So. 2d at709. W her e pr oof

of a conve r s at i on h as been of tw o di f f er entki nds , namel y a re c o rd in gth e re o

f a n d tes tim o ny b

y w itn e ss e s w h o o v e rh e a rdit , i thas been arg u ed th at bo th th e rec o rdin g an d the testi m o n y w ere b est ev iden ce ; ho w ev er, the cour t s have notrelegated ei thert o a s econdar y pos i t i on, buthave he ld that both t ypes of evi dence ar e equal l

y com pet ent pr i m ar y evi dence , and thatone is not to b e excl ud ed b ecau se of the exis t ence o

f the o ther. I d. ( q u o tin g 2 9 A m . J u r. 2 d , E vi dence § 4 36 ( 19 67 ) ) ( e mpha s i s i n o r i gi na l ) . A c c or di ngl y, the tr i al courtdi d noterri n overrul i ng def ens e coun sel ’ s obj ect i on, and the addi t i onal arg u m en ts r ai sed by defense cou nsel – w hich do n ot r el y o n the bestevidence rul e – are pr ocedur al l y barr ed. W i th thats ai d, w e w i l l f ul l y exami ne def

ens e counse l ’ s under l yi ng arg u m en t i n sea rch o f th e a ll eg ed p lai n erro r. ¶4 4. O f

f i cerA r endal e t e s t i f

i e d a s a l a y wi tne s s ; thu s hi s t e s t i mony mus tf i r s tpa s s t he
m us t erof

M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

E vi dence 701. R ul e 701 re qui r es l ay w i tnes s t es t i m ony t o be
r at i onal l y bas ed on the w i tnes s es ’ s per cept i on, hel pf ul t o under s t and hi s t es t i m ony ora f act i n i s s ue, and notbas ed on expe r tknow l edge, w hi ch i s c ontr ol l ed by R ul e 702. M i s s . R . E vi d. 7 0 1 . T h e c o m m e n t to R u le 7 0 1 g o e s o n to sta te, in p a rt: T h e tra d iti o n a l ru le r e g a rd in g lay o p in io n s h a s b e e n , w ith so m e e x c e p tio n s, to excl ude them fr om evi dence . R ul e 701 i s a depa r tur e f r om t he t r adi t i onal rul e. I tf avor s the adm i s s i on of

l ay opi ni ons w hen tw o cons i der at i ons ar e met . T he f i r s tcons i der at i on i s the f amil i ar r equi r ementof f i r s t - hand know l edge or obs ervat i on. T he s econd c onsi der at i on i s thatthe w i tnes s ’ s opi ni on m us tbe hel pf ul i n r es ol vi ng the i s s ues . R ul e 701, thus pr ovi des f l exi bi l i ty w hen a w i tnes s has di f

f i cul ty i n expr es s i ng the w i tnes s ’ s thought s i n l anguage w hi ch d o e s n o t refle c t an o p in io n . R u le 7 0 1 is b a se d o n th e re c o g n iti o n th a t th e re is of t en t oo thi n a l i ne betw een f actand opi ni on t o det erm i ne w hi ch i s w hi ch.

### 21

M is s . R . E v id . 7 0 1 c m t. ¶45. “A s the comm entt o [ R ul e] 701 expl ai ns , ther e i s a t w o- partpr er equi s i t e t es tf ort he admi s s i bi l i ty of

l ay w i tnes s opi ni on t es t i m ony. Fi r s t , t he i nf or m at i on m us tas s i s tthe tr i erof f act ; a nd s econd, the opi ni on m us tbe bas ed on f i r s t - hand know l edge. ” W e lls v. S ta te , 604 S o . 2 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 8 ( M is s . 1 9 9 2 ). T h e re is n o s u b s titu te fo r e ith e r r e q u ir e m e n t. I d. ; see al so R o b e rs o n v. S ta te , 5 6 9 S o . 2 d 6 9 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ); R o se v. S ta te , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 7 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ); J a c kso n v. S ta te , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). ¶46. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , O ffic e r A re n d a le n a rra ted th e s u rv e ill a n c e fo o tag e o f th e H y a tt Food M artr obbery bef

or e i tw as show n t o t he j ury. O f f i cerA r endal e s t at ed thatJ us t i n J ones c a m e to th e fro n t d o o r a n d s a id “ g o o d n ig h t” to a n e m p lo y e e ; h o w e v e r, d e fe n se c o u n se l d id notobj ectt o t he s t at ement s . O f f i cerA r endal e cont i nued, s t at i ng thatJ ones exi t ed, t ook a f ew s t eps , “l ooked behi nd hi m t o s ee i f anybody w as l ooki ng athi m , ” and “f l ed on f oot ” outof vi ew of the camer as . O f

f i cerA r endal e then s t at ed that , aboutf i f t een s econds l at er , tw o bl ack
m a les c a m e fro m th e d ir e c tio n in w h ich Jo n e s h a d ru n . A s O ffic e r A re n d a le b e g a n to des cr i be the i ndi vi dual s , def ens e couns el r ai s ed an obj ect i on underthe bes tevi dence rul e, ur gi ng the t ri al co urtt o pl ay the vi deo i n pl ace of O f f i cerA r endal e’ s narr at i on. T he tr i al courtoverrul ed the obj ect i on, and O f f i cerA r endal e des cr i bed the i ndi vi dual s i n the vi deo. I m m edi at el y af

t erO f f i cerA r endal e’ s narr at i on, the tr i al cour tpl ayed the vi deo f orthe j ur y. ¶ 4 7 . O ffic e r A re n d a le w a s n o t p re se n t a t th e tim e o f th e ro b b e ry ; th u s h e d id n o t h a v e firsthand know l edge of

the eve nt s thatt ook pl ace i n the vi deo. A ddi t i onal l y, the f oot age l acke d a u d io, so a l ay view er, w ith o u t h av ing prior i n form ati o n , w o u ld no t h av e b ee n ab le to d e ter m in e c o n c lu siv e ly w h a t w a s sa id . W h ile O ffic e r A re n d a le d id n o t ex p re ss ly sp e c u late

### 22

thatJ ones m ay have been c as i ng the j oi ntf ort he r obber s , hi s t es t i m ony s eems t o i m pl y t he p o ss ib ili ty . T h e m a

jo rity o f O ffic e r A re n d a le’ s n a rra tio n c o n sis ted o f d e sc rip tio n s o f e v e n ts thatcan be s een cl ear l y i n the vi deo. I ti s not ew or thy thatW eberand M i chae l B ur chf i el d, the empl oyee t o w hom J ones t al ked pr i ort o the r obbery, w er e both t es t i f yi ng w i tnes s es w ho had f i r s thand know l edge of

the eve nt s thatO f

f i cerA r endal e des cr i bed. ¶4 8 . T h e tr ial co u rt ’s ad m issi o n o f O ffi ce r A ren d ale’s n arrati o n m ay h av e b ee n im p rop er; h o w ev er, i t did n o t am o u n t t o a m iscarri ag e o f j u sti ce n ec essa ry to co n sti tute a p lai n erro r. T he w i tnes s s houl d nott el l the j ury w hatthey ca n cl ear l y s ee f orthemsel ves on the t ape, as [ O f

f i cerA r endal e] di d. Itnatur al l y f ol l ow s thati f

the j ury can cl earl y see f

or them sel ves a n d

if th e w itn e ss is in n o g re a terp o sitio n to re la te w h a t is d e

p icte d b y p e rs o n a l o b se rv a tio n o f th e e v e n ts , then hi s opi ni on i s not o n e w h ich is h e lp fu l to th e trier o f fa c t. W e lls , 6 0 4 S o . 2 d a t 2 7 9 . M o re o v e r, O ffic e r A re n d a le te s tif ie d a s to w h a t Jo n e s s a id to B ur chf i el d, w hi ch ca nnotbe hea r d i n the vi deo and w as not hear d by O f f i cerA r endal e; ther ef or e, s uch t es t i m ony nece s s ar i l y f ai l s the f i r s thand obs ervat i on pr ong of R ul e 701. ¶49. H ow ever , the tr i al c our t ’ s i m pr operadmi s s i on of O f f i cerA r endal e’ s narr at i on di d not a m o u n t to a m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e . F irst, d e fe n se c o u n se l d id n o t o b jec t co n tem p o ra n e o u sly to th e tes tim o n y u n til O ffic e r A re n d a le b e g a n d e sc rib in g th e s u sp e c ts; th u s a n y a rg u m e n t to e x c lu d e th e te s tim o n y p ri o r to th e o b je c tio n is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . H a v a rdv. S ta te , 928 So. 2 d 7 7 1 , 7 9 3 (¶ 3 9 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). E v en if the a rgu m en ts w ere n o t barred , O ffi ce r A ren d ale’s s i m pl e des cr i pt i on thatJ ones s ai d “goodni ght , ” has l i t t l e, i f a ny, be ar i ng on the ca s e athand. Such a s t at ementi s m er e expos i t i on t o the arm ed r obbery. W hi l e O f f i cerA r endal e m ay have i m pl i ed thatJ ones may have ha d s om e connec t i on w i th the r obber s ’ i m m edi at e, s ubs equent entry, he d i d no tex press l y st at e an o pini on o n the m at t er. S uch a st at em ent cert ai nly i s l ess

### 23

s pecul at i ve than the des cri pt i on i n W e lls , in w h ich a lay w itn ess, na rrati n g a v ideo o f a ca sh ier, sp ec u late d a s to h o w the c ash ier w as im p rop erly tak ing m o n ey , w h ich th e C o u rt d e e m e d h a rm le s s e rr o r. See W e lls , 6 0 4 S o . 2 d at 28 0 . T h e se g m en t of O ffi ce r A ren d ale’s narr at i on w hi ch f

ol l ow ed def

ense c ounsel ’ s obj ect i on cons i s t ed mer el y of des cr i bi ng t he i ndi vi dual s s een i n the vi deo, the r ecor di ng s ys t em i t s el f , and the chai n of cust ody of the vi deo. T her ef

or e, w hi l e the t r i al cour ti m pr oper l y adm i t t ed O f f i cerA r endal e’ s narr at i on of the vi deo, def

ens e couns el di d notr ai s e a proper obj ect i on t o the narr at i on. T hus , G al es w a iv e d th e n a rra tio n a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l, an d , re g a rd les s, the e rro r d o e s n o t am o u n t to p lain e rr o r b e c a u s e it d id n o t r e s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o f j u s tic e . I V . W het h er the t ri al court err ed w hen i t deni ed G al es ’ s m ot i on t o s et asi d e t h e j u ry verd i ct for l ega l i n suff i ci en cy in the p rosecu ti on ’s case or, al t ernat i vel y, deni ed G al es a new t ri al w here t he verdi ct w as agai nst t he overwh el m i ng w ei ght of t he evi dence. ¶50 . G al es’ s f

i nal ar gu m en t ch all en g es the lega l sufficienc y o f the v erdi ctand al so cont ends thatthe ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . I n f

aci ng c h a llen g e s to th e leg a l su ffic ien c y o f th e e v id e n c e , the re lev a n t q u e stio n fo r th e C o u rt is “w hether , af

t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on, any ra tio n a l trier o f fa c t co u ld h a v e fo u n d the es se n tial ele m e n ts o f th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . ” B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2 d 836, 843 ( ¶ 16) ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng Jacks on v. V irg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 315 ( 1979) ) . “W hen r evi ew i ng a deni al of a mot i on f

ora new tr i al b ase d on an objecti o n t o th e w eigh t o f th e ev iden ce , w e w il l o n ly disturb a ve rdict w h e n it is s o c o n tra ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e th a t to a llo w it t o sta n d w o u ld s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” B u sh , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d at 84 4 (¶ 1 8 ).

### 24

¶51. T hus , as t o the l egal s uf f i ci ency, G al es ar gues that no r at i onal tr i er of f act coul d have f ound G al es w as one of

the r obber s . G al es at t empt s t o bol s t erhi s ar gum entby dem ons tr at i ng the ci r cumst ant i al natur e of the ca s e; forexampl e, no one w as abl e t o i dent i f y G al es pos i t i vel y as one of

the r obber s , and the des cr i pt i on of the r obber s w as va gue and l at erw as m odi f i ed. G al es a l s o a r gues W eber ’ s t es t i m ony de m ons tr at ed hi s i nabi l i ty t o r emem bert he
r obbery. A ddi t i onal l y, G al es r epeat s O ff i cer Th om as’ s st at em ents that there w ere other bl ack
m al es on nearby street s w hen he st op ped G al es, yetO ff i cer T ho m as di d n o t st o p those i nd i vidual s. ¶52. A s t o the “ove r w hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence ” ar gum ent , G al es i t er at es that “bl ue j eans , br ow n s hoes , and a re d st amp on a fi ve- dol l arbi l l ” ar e t he onl y i t ems of evi dence t hat convi ct ed hi m . G al es not es thatthe pol i ce ne verarr es t ed the co-con spi r at orand thatt he black ho od i e w as not f

ou nd un t i l the n ext m orni ng , despit e sear ches that night . G al es al so no t es that the recov ered m on ey w as not t est ed for W eber’ s f i ng erpr i nts . ¶53. T he St at e count er s by ar gui ng that a r at i onal j ury coul d, and di d, convi ct G al es of t he crim es. T h e M issi ssipp i C ri m e L ab fo u n d a p arti cle ind icati v e o f g u n sh o t residu e o n G ales’s hand, and the lab als o m at ched the pi s t ol f ound the nextday w i th the s pents hel l cas i ng r ecove r ed atthe cr i m e sc ene. Fur ther , t he f actt hatno otherconspi r at or s w er e char ged does notpr ecl ude the f

i ndi ng of

a cons pi r acy. W hil e G al es w as convi ct ed by ci r cumst ant i al e v id e n c e , itw a s s u ffic ien t fo r a ra tio n a l ju ro r to m a k e a c o n c lu sio n o f g u ilt . A rg u m e n ts re g a rd in g th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e a re to b e d e c id e d b y th e ju ry a s th e fin d e r o f fa c t. Mo o re v. S ta te , 8 6 9 S o . 2 d 1 5 3 , 1 5 6 (¶ 1 1 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).

### 25

¶54. T he ver di ctw as bot h l egal l y suf f i ci entand notagai ns tt he ov er w hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . T he maj or i ty of G al es ’ s s t at ed ar gum ent s ar e f actual i n natur e. “The w ei ght an d cre d ibil ity to b e g iven to a w itn ess’s testi m o n y ‘are w ith in the so le pro v ince o f th e jury as f actf i nder . ’ ” B u tlerv. S ta te , 102 So. 3d 260, 268 ( ¶ 22) (M i ss. 2 012) ( quot i ng K ing v. S ta te , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 8 , 1 2 6 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). “ [T h e] C o u rth as re p ea tedly h eld th at ‘th e jury i s the f i nal arbi t erof a w i tnes s ’ s cr edi bi l i ty. ’ ” Ho w e ll v. S ta te , 86 0 S o. 2d 70 4, 73 1 (M i ss. 2003) ( quot i ng W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 794 So. 2d 1019, 1028 ( ¶ 59) (M i s s . 2001) ) . W hi l e much of the evi dence su pport i ng G al es ’ s convi ct i on w as ci r cumst ant i al , “[ c] i rum cumst ant i al evi dence need notexcl ude eve r y ‘ pos s i bl e doubt , ’ butonl y every other‘ r eas onabl e’ hy po t hesi s of i nnocenc e. ” Ca m p b e ll v. S ta te , 79 8 So . 2d 52 4, 52 9 ( ¶ 1 3) ( M i s s . 20 02) ( quot i ng T

o lb e rt v . S ta te , 4 0 7 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 , 8 2 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 1 )). ¶55. T aki ng i nt o acc ount the r ol e of the j ury as the f act f i nder , as w el l as the evi dence and t est i m on y el i ci t ed by b oth part i es, G al es’ s verdi ctw as both l egall y suff i ci ent and n ot agai nst the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . CO NC L US I ON ¶5 6 . T h e tri al co u rtco rrectl y d eterm ined th a t O fficer T h o m as p erfo rm ed a p rop er T erry s t op and pat - dow n of G al es. H ow ever , the tr i al courterr ed i n i t s det erm i nat i on thatG al es w as notarr es t ed unt i l W eberi dent i f i ed the f i ve- dol l arbi l l . D es pi t e s uch err or , upon de novo re v iew , O ffic e r G a les h a d p ro b a b le c a u se p ro p e rly to a rre st G a les a fte r G a les v o lu n tar ily s how ed hi m hi s money dur i ng the T erry s t op. Fur ther , O f

f i cerA r endal e pr oper l y s ear ched G al es i nci dentt o the arr es t , al l ow i ng hi m t o s ei ze the money and s how i tt o W eber . T he tr i al courtcor r ect l y det erm i ned t hatt he excl us i onary rul e i s notappl i cabl e i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce ,

### 26

i n partbeca us e ther e w as no Mir anda vi ol at i on. W hi l e the tr i al courti m pr oper l y al l ow ed O f f i cerA r endal e t o narr at e the s ur vei l l ance vi deo pr i ort o i t s bei ng s how n t o t he j ury, t he d ec isi o n o f th e tri al co u rtd id n o t create a m iscarri ag e o f j u sti ce am o u n ti n g to p lai n erro r. F i nall y, the co rr ectl egal st and ard w as appl i ed t o G al es’ s case, and t he v erdi cti s not agai nst the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . T her ef

or e, the C our taf

f i r m s the j udgm entof

t he trial c o u rt. ¶57. CO UNT I I : CO NVI CTI ON OF CO NSP I RA CY TO CO M M I T ARM ED RO B B E RY AN D S E NT E NC E OF F I VE ( 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M ISS ISS IP P I D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , A F F IR M E D . C O U N T III : CO NV I CT I ON OF AR M E D R OB B E RY AN D S E NT E NC E OF L I F E I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, A F F I R M E D . S E N T E N C E S S H A L L R U N C O N C U R R E N T L Y . W ALLER, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, P . J J . , LA M AR, CHAN DLER AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. KI TCHEN S , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y K I N G , J. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶58 . T he m aj ori ty fi n d s the ac ti o n s o f t h e p o li ce justi fi ed , rea so n ing that G ales’s appr ehens i on w as bas ed on r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o conducta T er r y st op and proba ble cause t o arr es t . W i th r es pect , I di s agr ee. G al es w as a bl ack m an w ho ha ppened t o be i n pos s es s i on of s om e cas h and w ho m ay orm ay nothave bee n runni ng atthe t i m e he w as det ai ned. T hat i s nota s uf

f i ci entbas i s f

ort he f ul l cust odi al det ent i on of G al es , atgunpoi nt , w hi ch i m m edi at el y f

ol l ow ed the i ni t i al pol i ce s i gh t i ng of hi m. The Four th A m endmentt o the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tuti on gu arant ees: T he r i ghtof

the peopl e t o be s ecur e i n thei rpe r s ons , hous es , papers, and ef f ect s agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches a nd s ei zur es , s hal l notbe vi ol at ed, and no W arr ant s s hall is sue, butupon pr obabl e ca us e, s uppor t ed by O ath or

### 27

af f i r m at i on, and part i cul ar l y des cr i bi ng the pl ace t o be s ear ched, and the per s ons orthi ngs t o be s ei zed. T o li ke eff

ect , A rt i cl e 3, S ect i on 23 , of the M i ssi ssi pp i C on st i tuti on gu arant ees: T he peopl e shall b e s ecur e i n thei rper s ons , hous es , and pos s es s i ons , f r om unr eas onabl e s ei zur e o r s ear ch; and no w arr ants hal l be i s s ued w i thout pr obabl e cause, suppor t ed by oath oraf f i r m at i on, s peci al l y des i gnat i ng the p la c e to b e s e a rc h e d a n d th e p e rs o n o r t h in g to b e s e iz e d . ¶59. I n T

e rr y v. O h io , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d: [ C ] ou rt s s t i l l r et ai n thei rtr adi t i onal r es pons i bi l i ty t o guar d agai ns tpol i ce conductw hi ch i s over - bear i ng orhar as s i ng, orw hi ch tr enche s upon pe r s onal s ecur i ty w i thoutthe obj ect i ve evi dent i ary j us t i f i cat i on w hi ch the C ons t i tut i on re q u ir e s . W

hen s uch conduc tis i dent i f i ed, i tm us tbe conde m ned by the ju d icia ry a n d

its fru its m u st b e ex c lu d e d fro m e v ide n c e in c rim in a l tria ls . A nd, o f c o u rse, ou r ap p rov al of l egi t i m at e an d r e s tr ai ne d i nv e s t iga t i v e c on duc t u n d ertak en o n the b asis o f am pl e f actualj us t i

f i cat i on s houl d i n no w ay d isc o u ra g e th e e m p lo y m e n t o f o th e r re m e d ies th a n th e e x c lu sio n a ry ru le to curt ai l abus es f

orw hi ch thats anct i on m ay pr ove i nappr opr i at e. T e rr y v. O h io , 3 9 2 U . S . 1 , 1 5 , 8 8 S . C t. 1 8 6 8 , 20 L . E d . 2 d 8 8 9 (19 6 8 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). B eca us e the ac t i ons of

the arr es t i ng of

f i ceri n the ca s e athand w er e notpr edi cat ed upon a m p le f a c tu a l ju stific a tio n , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶6 0 . T h e G ree n v il le P o li ce D ep artm en t co m m en ce d an inv esti g ati o n foll o w ing a ro b b ery atthe H yattFood M arton D ece m ber19, 2011. I nves t i gat orJ er emy A r endal e, w ho had bee n cal l ed t o the s cene , vi ew ed the s t or e’ s s ur vei l l ance vi deos and obs erved a bl ack mal e w ear i ng a bl ue s hi r t , bl ack pant s , a nd a w hi t e hoodi e. A r endal e conve yed thatdes cr i pt i ve i nf or m at i on t o the pol i ce di s pat cherw ho r el ayed i tvi a pol i ce r adi o. O f f i cerTabar i T ho m as, havi ng al m os tcompl et ed hi s s hi f tf orthe eve ni ng, hear d t he di s pat ch and “ thought[ he] s aw s om ebody runni ng” i n t he ar ea of B l and Str eetand N or th H arvey Str eet , atl eas tf i ve bl ocks f r om the s cene of

the cr i m e. T hom as t es t i fi ed thathe “turned [ hi s pol i ce c ar ] back a r ound”

### 28

and s aw B r andon G al es , a bl ack mal e w ho w as w ear i ng a l ong- s l eeve d gr ay s hi r tand bl ue jean s. G ales a ll eg ed ly w as “ try ing to w alk to try to p lay it off at th a t tim e li k e h e w asn ’t runni ng. ” Thom as dr ew hi s gun, poi nt ed i tatG al es , and appr oache d hi m , hol di ng G al es at gunpoi ntf

r om the out setof

thei rencount er . W hen as ked w hy he w as outof br eath, G al es re p o rt e d ly re s p o n d e d th a t h e h a d ju s t le ft a g a m b lin g h o u s e . ¶61. O f

f i cerT hom as then pat t ed G al es dow n. U pon f eel i ng “a l i t t l e bul ge i n [ G al es ’ s ] back pocket , ” Thom as as ked w hatitw as. G al es r es ponded thati tw as m oney he ha d w on att he gambl i ng hous e. Thom as s oughta n upda t ed des cr i pt i on f r om di s pat ch, w hi ch r evea l ed that the s us pectbei ng s oughtw as w ear i ng bl ue j eans , notbl ack pa nt s as T hom as had thought
w h e n h e sto p p e d G a les . T h o m a s th e n h a n d c u ffe d G a les , w h ich h e tes tif ie d w a s “ a sa fe ty i s s ue f orm i ne and hi s , ” and w as i ns truct ed t o t ake G al es t o the s cene of the cr i m e. T hom as di d notunder s t and thathe had, i n f act , arr es t ed G al es atthatpoi nt , butt es t i f i ed t hathe w as det ai ni ng hi m “f

orf ur theri nves t i gat i on. ” ¶ 6 2 . G a les w a s d riv e n b y O ffic e r T h o m a s to th e H y a tt F o o d M a rt. In v e stig a to r A re n d a le t es t i f i ed atthe s uppr es s i on he ar i ng thathe pul l ed a handcuf f ed G al es f

r om the back s eatof the pol i ce c rui ser , saw “money i n hi s back poc ket , ” and “ t ook s om e pi ctur es of the money thatw as i n hi s back poc ketand al s o i n hi s f r ontpocket . ” A r endal e then r eturned i nt o t he sto re w h e re h e h a d b e e n w a tch in g s u rv e ill a n c e v id e o s a n d a sk e d th e sto re c ler k , A b d u lh a k im W eber , aboutthe s peci f i c denomi nat i ons of cas h w hi ch had been s t ol en. A r endal e r etur ned t o the pol i ce c rui s erand r emoved t he cas h f r om G al es ’ s pocket . R i f l i ng thr ough the ca s h, A r endal e di s cover ed a r ed s t amp on one of the bi l l s , r eturned i ns i de the H yattFood M ar t , and as ked W eberw hether“anyt hing [w as] unus ual aboutthe ca s h” t aken f r om hi s s t or e.

### 29

A ccor di ng t o A r endal e, W eberre s ponded t hat“one of the bi l l s he gotf

r om the banke rhad a r ed s t amp on i t . ” B eca us e the r ed s t amp on t he bi l l s eemi ngl y m at ched the bi l l t aken f r om W eber’ s pocke t , acc or di ng t o A r endal e, G al es w as pl ace d underarr es t( l i ke Thom as, a p p a re n tly n o t a p p re c ia tin g th a t th e h a n d c u ff e d G a le s a lr e a d y h a d b e e n a rr e s te d ). 1. O f

f i cer T hom as art i cul at ed no reas onabl e s uspi ci on t o j ust i f y G al es ’ s i n i ti al appr e he ns i on. ¶ 6 3 . T h e m a

jo rity n o tes G a les ’s c o n c e ss io n in h is m o tio n to su p p re ss th a t “ th e G re e n v ill e P o lice D ep artm en t h ad th e ri g h t to st o p an d qu esti o n th e d efe n d an t, an d ev en th e ri g h t to conducta pat - dow n f orw eapons . ” A ccor di ng t o the ma j or i ty, thi s acknow l edgment f or ecl os es appel l at e r evi ew , si nce “the i s s ue of w hetherO f

f i cerT hom as had l egal gr ounds t o c onductthe T

erry st op of G al es i n t he f i r s tpl ace w as concede d and notar gued bef or e the tr i al court . ” Y etG al es ’ s couns el cl ear l y r ai s ed the pr opr i ety of t he i ni t i al s t op or e t enus d u rin g th e h e a rin g o n the m o tio n to su p p re ss : “[i] n this ca se , the ra d io tra n sm iss io n s c lea rly g a v e o n e d e s c ri p tio n . T h is in d iv id u a l fits a n o th e r. H e is f iv e b lo c k s fr o m th e lo c a tio n .” M or eover , the tr i al court ’ s or der den ying G al es ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s di r ect l y anal yzed the i ni t i at i on of

the pol i ce s t op: “w hethert he of f i cer ’ s act i ons w er e j us t i f i ed ati t s i ncept i on , t hat i s , di d the of

f i cerpoi ntt o s peci f

i c and art i cul abl e f

act s w hi ch, t aken t ogetherw i th r at i onal inferen c e s fro m tho se fa cts, rea so n ab ly w arran t th e intrusio n . ” (E m p h asis ad d ed . ) F u rth er, i n hi s w r i t t en m ot i on t o suppr es s , G al es st at ed t he f ol l ow i ng: “[ the pol i ce] di d nothave the
r i ghtt o tr ans por t[ G al es ] anyw her e, nordi d they have the r i ghtto conduc ta s ear ch. T he di s covery of

the money w as a r es ul tof thi s vi ol at i on of the def endant ’ s F our th A m endment

### 30

R i ght s . ” The ques t i on of w hetherthe pol i ce exc eede d th e sc o p e o f T

erry th u s is sq u a re ly b e fo re th e C o u rt. ¶ 6 4 . T erry hel d t he f

ol l ow i ng, nothi ng m or e: W e m erel y h old t od ay thatw he re a po l i ce off i cer observes unus ualconduct w hi ch l eads hi m r eas onabl y t o concl ude i n l i ghtof hi s exper i ence thatcr i m i nal act i vi ty m ay be a f

ootand thatthe pers on s w i t h w hom he i s deal i ng m ay be a rm ed an d p rese n tl y d an g ero u s, w h ere in the co u rse o f i n v esti g ati n g this beh aviorhe ident i fi es hi m sel f as a po l i cem an an d m akes reasonab l e i nq uir i es, a n d w h e re n o th in g in th e in iti a l sta g e s o f t h e e n c o u n ter se rv e s to d isp e l h is r eas onabl e f

earf orhi s ow n orother s ’ s af ety, he i s e nt i t l ed fort he p rot ect i on of him sel f

and other s i n the ar ea t o conducta car ef ul l y l i m i t ed s ear ch of

the o u ter c lo th in g o f s u c h p e rso n s in a n a ttem p t to dis cove rw eapons w hi ch m ight b e u se d to a ss a u lt h im . T erry , 3 9 2 U. S . a t3 0 ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) . I n t h a tc a s e , o n e Of f i c e rM c F a d d e n s u s p e c t e d “ two m en of ‘ c a s i ng a j ob , a s t i c k- up ’ ” be c a us e the y c on du c t e d a “ c a s ua l a nd of t - r epea t ed re c o n n a is s a n c e o f th e s to re w in d o w o n H u ro n R o a d . . . .” I d. a t6. H e had obs erved one man l eave the ot her , w al k t o t he st or ef r ont , pause t o peeri nt o the s t or e w i ndow , and r eturn t o t he o th e r m a n , w h o th e n d id th e s a m e . I d . A l l i n al l , “[ t ] he tw o m en re peat ed thi s r i tual al t ernat el y be tw een f

i ve and s i x t i m es api ece — i n al l , r oughl y a doze n tr i ps . ” I d. L ater, a third
m a n a p p e a re d , c o n v e rs e d w ith th e tw o m e n , a n d th e n w a lk e d o ff. I d. H i s s us pi ci ons ar ous ed, O f f i cerM cFadden appr oache d the men and asked t hei rnames, f ear i ng thatthey may have h a d a g u n . I

d. ¶65 . “W hen the men ‘ m um bl ed s om ethi ng’ i n r es pons e t o hi s i nqui ri es, ” O ff i cer M cF add en or der ed t he t hr ee m en t o go i ns i de a s t or e and “ t o f ace the w al l w i th thei rhands r ai s ed. ” I d. at7. M cFadden then patt ed Ter r y dow n, f el ta handgun, r emoved T erry’ s over coat , and lo c a te d a .3 8 -c a lib e r r e v o lv e r i n T e rr y ’s o v e rc o a t p o c k e t. I d. H e al s o l ocat ed anotherr evol ver

### 31

o n C h ilto n , th e s e c o n d s u s p e c t, b u t f o u n d n o w e a p o n s o n K a tz , th e th ir d s u s p e c t. I d. H e d id no tp uthi s hands benea th the out ergarm ent s of ei therT erry orC hi l t on unt i l he had d is c o v e re d w e a p o n s . I

d . F in d in g th a t M c F a d d e n h a d a re a so n a b le, a rticu lab le s u sp icio n “ to b eli ev e tha t [ T erry ] w as a rm ed an d d an g ero u s, ” the S u p rem e C o u rtaff irm e d T erry ’s co n v ict ion for c arr y in g c o n c e a led w e a p o n s a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t th e re v o lver se ized from T erry w as “pr oper l y admi t t ed i n evi dence agai ns thi m . ” I d . at30. ¶6 6. H er e, bo th the maj or i ty a nd the tr i a l c ou r t c on c l ud e d tha t O f f i c e r T hom as ’ s i ni t i al appr ehens i on of

G al es w as “gr ounded i n a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on thatG al es w as connec t ed
w i th the arm ed r obbery. ” Thatconcl us i on w as r eac hed notw i ths t andi ng thatthe mostO f f i cer T h o m as o b serv ed w as a y o u n g m an w alkin g — o r m aybe runni ng dow n a s tr eet . T hi s cannot be s ai d t o be “unus ual conduct , ” and the of f i cerharkened ba ck t o not hi ng i n hi s exper i ence w hi ch l ed hi m t o concl ude f r om t hatobservat i on “t hatcr i m i nal act i vi ty m ay be a f oot ” and that“[ G al es ] m ay be a r m ed and pr es ent l y danger ous . ” I d . ¶6 7 . A t th e s u p p re ss io n h e a ring , T h o m as testi fi ed that the “ b e-o n -th e -lo o k o u t” ra d io tra n sm iss io n d e sc rib e d a b lac k m a le w e a rin g a b lu e sh irt, b lac k p a n ts, a n d a w h ite h o o d ie h ea d ing tow ard B ell e A ir e S tr ee t. O ffi ce r T h o m as test if ied th at G ales “ h ad o n a g ray sh irt

. . . b lu e je a n s a n d a b ro w n p a iro f, I w o u ld s a y C la rk W a lla b e e s ,” a n d w a s “ w a lk in g s o u th .” O n di r ectexami nat i on, O f f i cerT hom as t es t i f

i ed thatG al es ’ s pant s and s hoes m at ched the des c r i pt i on o f

the s us pe c ta s s oc i a t e d w i th the r ob be ry of the HyattFo od M a r twhi c h t he off i cer had h eard ov er hi s poli ce radi o, “everythi ng e x ce p t f or the h oo die. ” B ut on cross exam i nati on , O ff

i cer Th om as adm i t t ed that G al es w as w eari ng n o blue shi rt , no black pan t s, a n d n o w h ite h o o d ie. H e a lso c o n c e d e d th a t G a les w a s n o t h e a d in g in th e d ire c tio n o f B e lle

### 32

A i r e Str eet . O f

f i cerT hom as answ ered “[t ] hat ’ s true” w hen as ked w hetherhe “kne w he [ G al es ] di dn’ tf

i ta ny of the des cr i pt i on. . . . ” Fur ther , O f f i cerThom as a dm i t t ed thatthe i ni t i al des cr i pt i on i ncl uded no i nf or m at i on re gar di ng t he sus pect ’ s s hoes . N everthel es s , he t es t i f i ed thathe “j us tf

el tthatthatw as a l i t t l e s us pi ci ous a tthe t i m e. O n the des cr i pt i on, a s f aras the cl othi ng des cr i pt i on. . . . ” ¶68. B eca us e t he record do es no t s uppor t thei r as s ert i ons , both the m aj or i ty and t he tr i al c o u rt fa iled to a rticu late w h a t “r e a so n a b le s u sp icio n , g ro u n d e d in s p e c ific a n d a rticu lab le fa c ts ,” ju s tif

ie d th e in itia l s to p o f G a le s . E a dd y v. S ta te , 63 S o. 3d 1209, 1213 (M i s s . 2011) ( quot i ng W

a lk e r v . S ta te , 8 8 1 S o . 2 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 )); T erry , 392 U . S. at21 ( “the pol i ce of f i cerm us tbe abl e t o poi ntt o s peci fi c and art i cul abl e f act s w hi ch, t aken t ogether
w i th rat i on al i nfer ences f rom tho se f

act s, r easona bly w arr ant that i ntrusi on . ”) N evertheles s, the maj or i ty f

i nds the exi s t ence of

r eas onabl e s us pi ci on beca us e [ they s ay] “G al es w as i n the i m m edi at e vi ci ni ty of

the cr i m e s cene s oon af t erthe r obbery, part i al l y m at ched the des cr i pt i on of

one of the r obber s , and appe ar ed nervous . ” A ddi t i onal l y, accordi ng t o t he
m aj or i ty, “O f

f i cerT hom as ’ s s us pi ci ons w er e f ur therpi qued w hen G al es , w ho w as w ear i ng c a s u a l s h o e s , s to p p e d ru n n in g w h e n h e n o tic e d O ff ic e r T h o m a s ’s p re s e n c e .” ¶69 . T he tr anscri pt f

rom the sup press i on heari ng m akes cl ear that G al es w as atl eastf i ve ci t y blocks f

r om the cr i m e s cene atthe t i m e of hi s appr ehens i on, w hi ch ca nnotbe s ai d t o be “i n the i m m edi at e vi ci ni ty” of the cr i m e scen e. In no r es pect , s ave a nd exce pthi s bei ng a bl ack mal e, di d G al es “mat ch the des cr i pt i on of one of the r obber s ” atthe t i m e O f f i cer T hom as s t opped hi m ; hi s cl othi ng w as s t arkl y di s t i nctf r om thatof

the s us pectdes cr i bed o v e r th e p o li ce radio . F u rth er, the a p p ea ran ce of ne rvo u sn ess n o ted b y th e m ajority is

### 33

under s t andabl e. A n appea r ance of nervous nes s i s es peci al l y unde r s t andabl e her e, i n l i ghtof O ffic e r T h o m a s’s tes tim o n y a t trial th a t h e su m m o n e d G a les a t g u n p o in t: I dr ew m y f

i r earm , poi nt ed i toutathi m , and I t ol d hi m t o s t op, dr op any we a p o n s i f

h e h a d a n y , a n d I t o l d h i m t o c o me t o m e . He p u th i s h a n d s u p . He s a id h e d id n ’t h a v e a n y w e a p o n s , a n d h e sta rt e d to a p p ro a c h m e . A tth a tt i me , h e a p p e a re d to b e v e ry n e rv o u s a ls o . . . . (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶70. A nd thi s w as not B r andon G al es ’ s f i r s t m eet i ng w i th the of

f i cer ; T hom as t es t i f

i ed at th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g th a t h e h a d a rre ste d G a les o n ly “ a w e e k o r tw o e a rlier ” fo r “ p u b lic p rofa n ity , so m eth in g li k e tha t. ” M o reo v er, O ffi ce r T h o m as’s testi m o n y reg ard ing G ales’s behavi ori s notas unequi vocal as the maj or i ty s ugges t s . A tthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, T hom as test if ied th at, “I thoughtI s a w s om ebody runni ng butI kepton dr i ving s o I turned bac k a ro u n d a n d I slo w e d d o w n , a n d tha t’s w h e n I sa w B ra n d o n G a les . H e w a s k in d o f try in g to w al k t o try t o pl ay i tof

f atthatt i m e l i ke he w as n’ trunni ng. ” ( E m phas i s added. ) B utO f f i cer T h o m a s c o n tra d icte d th a t sta tem e n t at th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g b y a c k n o w led g in g tha t, in h is
r eportpr epar ed atthe t i m e, he s ai d onl y thatG al es w as w al ki ng. E ven i f G al es had bee n runni ng, then st opped runni ng w hen he not i ced O f f i cerT hom as , and t hi s change of gai thad “pi qued” Thom as ’ s s us pi ci ons , one w onder s w hy thos e s us pi ci ons w er e notdi s pel l ed by the s tr i ki ng di f

f er ence s betw een the s us pectde s cr i bed i n the r adi o tr ans m i s s i on and the w ay that G al es actual l y l ooked. ¶ 7 1 . It c a n n o t b e s a id th a t t h e s e f a c to rs , ta k e n to g e th e r, “ a m o u n t to re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n .” U . S. v. Sokolow , 490 U . S. 1, 9, 109 S. Ct . 1581, 104 L . E d. 2d 1 ( 1989) . O nl y G al es ’ s r ace a n d g e n d e r m a tch e d th e d e s c rip tio n o f th e ro b b e ry su sp e c t, an d a re th u s th e o n ly

### 34

char act er i s t i cs w arr ant i ng “s us pi ci on” thatar e s ubs t ant i al i n the tr ans cr i ptof the s uppr es s i on hear i ng. T he m aj or i ty’ s concl us i on s ugges t s thata T erry sto p o f a n y b lac k m a le w ith in appr oxi m at el y one mi l e of a cr i m e s cene w oul d be j us t i f i ed. C ons equent l y, I concl ude that O f f i cerThom as ’ s i ni t i al s t op of G al es w as notj us t i f

i ed by a ny “ r eas onab l e suspi ci on, g rou n d ed in sp ec if

ic an d arti cu lable fa cts. ” B ey o n d m ere sp ec u lat ion reg ard ing G ales’s al l eged c onduct , O f

f i cerT hom as art i cul at ed no “unus ual conduct ” on the partof G al es w hi ch
m ig h t h a v e le d “ h im re a so n a b ly to c o n c lu d e in lig h t o f h is e x p e rie n c e th a t cr im in a l ac tiv ity
m ay be a f

oot ” and thatG al es “may [ have] be[ en] arm ed and pr es ent l y danger ous . ” T erry , 392 U . S. at30. T hi s s i m pl y i s nota T erry c a se , an d th e sto p w a s th u s in v a lid fro m its o u tse t. G al es ’ s conce s s i on t hatthe pol i ce ha d a r i ghtt o s t op hi m a nd pa thi m dow n f orw eapons w as m is ta k e n a n d is o f n o le g a l s ig n if ic a n c e . 2. G al es ’ s c ont i nued d et ent i on far exc eeded t he perm i s s i bl e s cope of a T erry s t op. ¶72. T he maj or i ty concedes that“O ff i cer T ho m as’ s con t i nued det ent i on of G al es and O f f i cerA r endal e’ s conducti n t aki ng G al es ’ s m oney ar e notcongruentw i th T erry ” and that “[ t ] he of f i cer s had ampl e t i m e t o a t t ai n a s ear ch w arr ant , w hi ch w oul d ha ve deci s i vel y m ade O ffic e r A re n d a le’ s a c tio n s p ro p e r.” I ag re e th a t th is, sta n d in g a lo n e , is a n a c c u ra te s tate m e n t. B ut , as an i nit i al m att er , the maj or i ty f ai l s s peci f

i cal l y and s uf

f i ci ent l y t o i dent i f

y the author i ty underw hi ch the pol i ce j us t i f i ed a c ont i nued detent i on of G al es , al though i tdoes att empt t o a ns w erthi s i nqui r y by not i ng that“ G al es no l ongerhad a ‘ r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pri vacy’ af

t erhe vol unt ar i l y show ed O f f i cerT hom as hi s m oney. ” ( ci t i ng Kat zv. U . S. , 389 U . S. 347, 360, 88 S. C t . 507, 19 L . E d. 2d 576 ( 1967) ) ( H ar l an, J . , concurr i ng) . I di s agr ee.

### 35

Pow er f ul thi ng thati ti s , cas h i s nota w eapon as cont empl at ed by T erry . See T

erry , 39 2 U. S. at29, 30. ¶73. T he m aj or i ty’ s r el i ance on J us t i ce H ar l an’ s concurr ence i n K atz i s m i s pl ace d. I n that cas e, the FB I , havi ng obt ai ned no w arr ant , ut i l i zed a n “el ectr oni c l i st eni ng and r ecor di ng d e v ice ” to e a v e sd ro p o n th e c o n v e rsa tio n s th e d e fe n d a n t w a s h a v in g o v e r th e tele p h o n e in a publ i c, butencl os ed, t el ephone booth. K a tz , 3 89 U. S. a t3 49 . The maj or i ty of the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tr ever s ed K at z’ s convi ct i on, hol di ng that , “[ w ] her evera m an may be, he i s ent i t l ed t o know thathe w i l l re m ai n fr ee f r om unr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es . ” I d. a t 3 5 9 . K

a tzis in a p p o site fro m th e p re se n t ca se , w h ich d o e s n o t in v o lv e a re a so n a b le ex p ec tat ion o f p ri v ac y in a c o n sti tuti o n all y p rotec ted a rea , su ch as a “h o m e, an o ffi ce , o r a hot el r oom ” or“a t el ephone booth. ” K a tzc e r t a i nl y do e s n otp r ov i de j us t i f i c a t i on f ort he c o n tin u e d d e te n tio n o f G a le s fo llo w in g h is ille g a l a rr e s t. ¶ 7 4 . I l linois v. A ndre as , also cit ed by th e m ajority as su p p o rtfor it s arg u m en t th at G ales’s pr i vacy i nt er es ti n t he ca s h w as ext i ngui s hed w hen he s how ed i tt o O f f i cerT hom as , pr ovi des that“ [ n] o pr ot ect ed pr i vacy i nt er es tr emai ns i n contr aband i n a cont ai neronce gove rnm ent of f i cer s l aw ful l y have ope ned thatcont ai nerand i dent i f i ed i t s cont ent s as i l l egal .” Illin o is v. A ndre as , 4 6 3 U . S . 7 6 5 , 7 7 1 , 1 0 3 S . C t. 3 3 1 9 , 77 L . E d . 2d 1 0 0 3 (19 8 3 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). I n thi s cas e, G al es w as noti n poss es s i on of anythi ng t hathad been i dent i f i ed as contr aband. R ather , he mer el y w as i n pos s es s i on of nonde s cr i ptc as h, nots peci f i cal l y i dent i f

i abl e atthe t i m e t he pol i ce obs erved i tas the cas h s t ol en f r om the H yattFood M art . T he mer e f actthat G a les m a y h a v e b ro u g h t so m e c a sh in to p lain v iew d id n o t e x tin g u ish h is re a so n a b le expec t at i on of

pr i vacy i n the uni que f

eatur es of

the part i cul arcas h i n hi s pocket , l at erbr ought

### 36

t o l i ghtw hen G al es w as s ear ched. T hus , the of f i cer s w er e notj us t i f

i ed i n exami ni ng the ca s h, a s G a le s lo s t n o p ri v a c y in te re s t in w h a t f ro m a ll a p p e a ra n c e s w a s a le g a l ite m . ¶75. E ven i f

G al es had l os thi s r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy i n the m oney by s how i ng i tt o O f f i cerT hom as , l os s of a r eas onabl e expec t at i on of pr i vacy i n some curr ency doe s not ju s tif y c o n tin u e d d e te n tio n o f a s u s p e c t a b s e n t le g itim a te a u th o ri ty fo r s o d o in g , e .g ., pr obabl e caus e t o ar r es t . H er e, t he pol i ce dr ove G al es t o the s cene of a cr i m e, w her e W eber c laim e d to re c o g n ize a b ill m a rk e d w ith so m e so rt o f ill-d e fin e d re d sta m p . T h e m a jo rity i m pli ci t l y t akes the p osi t i on thatthi s even tv al i dated t he o therw i se- defi ci ent arres tof G al es. ¶76 . O nce the os t ens i bl e T erry st op — w hich nev er s ho uld have occu rr ed i n the f i r s t pl ace — had r evea l ed thatG al es w as i n pos s es s i on of no w eapons , he s houl d have be en f r ee t o l eave pol i ce c us t ody. T hi s C our thas hel d unequi vocal l y that“[ a] n i nv est i gat i ve s t op m us tbe lim ited in sc o p e . . . . ‘W h e re a d e ten tio n . . . ex c e e d s th e sc o p e o f a n in v e stig a tiv e sto p , it appr oache s a s ei zur e. T o j us t i f y a s ear ch and s ei zur e w i thouta w arr ant , the s t at e musts how pr obabl e ca us e f

orarr es t . ” Floydv. S tate , 5 00 So. 2d 989, 992 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng Mc Cra y v. S ta te , 4 8 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). T h e p aten t i ll eg ali ty o f G ales’s cont i nued det ent i on, f

ari n exce s s of

the perm i s s i bl e sc ope of a genui ne T

er r y s t op, m andat es e x c lu s io n o f t h e e v id e n c e o b ta in e d th e re b y . See T erry , 392 U . S. at29 ( “The sol e j us t i f i cat i on of the search . . . i s the p rot ect i on of the p oli ce off i cer and o thers nearby, and i tm u st theref ore be co nfi ned i n scop e t o an intrusi on reasonab l y desi gn ed t o d i scover gu ns, kn i ves, club s, o r oth er h idd en instrum en ts f o r th e a ssau lto f th e p o li ce o ffi ce r. ”) ¶77. R egar dl es s of w hether G al es had a r eas onabl e expec t at i on of pr i vacy i n the cas h that
w as i n hi s pocket , the m aj or i ty i m pl i ci t l y hol ds he r e that , beca us e the ca s h f ound on G al es

### 37

w a s b e liev e d to b e e v id e n c e o f a n a rm e d ro b b e ry , th e d e ten tio n , a lth o u g h u n law fu l fro m its in c e p tio n , w a s m a d e leg iti m a te b y W e b e r’s ra th e r te n u o u s id e n tifica tio n o f o n e o f th e b ill s i n G al es ’ s po c ke ta s pa r tof the l oo tf

r om t he r ob be ry. Suc h a rul e w ou l d turn the e x c lu sio n a ry ru le o n its h e a d , ren d e rin g it w h o lly im p o ten t. T h e m a jo rity ’s a c q u ies c e n c e in th is re tro a c tiv e leg itim a tio n o f illeg a l p o lice c o n d u c t strip s th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t o f its purpos e and i t s pow er . I ndeed, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tf l at l y ha s r ej ect ed the not i on “thata sea r ch unl aw f

ul ati t s i ncept i on m ay be va l i dat ed by w hati tturns up. ” W ong Su n v. U . S. , 371 U . S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct . 407, 9 L . E d. 2d 441 ( 1963) ( ci t i ng Byars v. U . S. , 27 3 U. S. 2 8 , 4 7 S . C t. 24 8 , 7 1 L . E d . 5 2 0 (1 9 2 7 ); U. S. v. DiRe , 332 U . S. 581, 68 S. C t . 222, 228, 92 L . E d. 210 ( 1948) ) . H er e, the f actthatthe ca s h f

ound on G al es may have be en evi dence of th e a rm e d ro b b e ry sim p ly d o e s n o t ju stify o r le g iti m ize h is w ro n g fu l ap p re h e n sio n , h is co n ti n u ed d eten ti o n , an d the s ea rch w h ich led to a p o li ce b eli ef tha t th e c ash in G ales’s p o s s e s s io n w a s , in d e e d , the cas h s t ol en f rom the H yattFood M art . A s i n W ongSun , “[ a] c o n tra ry h o ld in g h e re w o u ld m e a n th a t a v a g u e su sp icio n c o u ld b e tra n sfo rm e d in to p ro b a b le caus e f ora r r es tby r eas on of

ambi guous conductw hi ch the arr es t i ng of f i cer s themsel ves have pr ovoked. ” W

ongSun , 3 7 1 U .S . a t 48 4 . H e re , a fte r ar re stin g G a les w ith n o re a so n a b le su sp icio n fo r so d o in g , O ffic e r T h o m a s p ro m p ted h im to re m o v e w h a t w a s in h is p o c k e t. E ven i f , as the maj or i ty insi st s, G al es r emoved t he ca s h of hi s ow n vol i t i on, i t s pr oduct i on w as the di r ectr es ul tof an i l l egal arr es t , and t he f rui tthus harves t ed mustther ef or e be s uppr es s ed. 3 . N o p r o b a b le c a u s e ju s ti fi e d G a le s ’s a r r e s t.

### 38

¶ 7 8 . T h e m a

jo rity fin d s th a t, “ [w ]he n O ffic e r T h o m a s h a n d c u ffe d G a les , p lac e d h im in to hi s crui s er , an d t rans por t ed hi m t o anotherl ocat i on, G al es w as ‘ ef f ect i vel y s ei zed f

ort he purpos es of

the Fourth A m endment . T hes e ci r cumst ance s s ur el y amount t o a s how of of f i ci al au tho ri ty su ch that a ‘rea so n ab le pe rson w o u ld h av e b eli ev ed h e w as n o t f ree to leav e.’’ ” ( quot i ng Flor ida v. R oyer , 460 U . S. 491, 501- 02 ( 1983) ( quot i ng U .S . v. Me n de n h a ll , 466 U . S . 544 , 554 ( 19 80 )) ). I w ho l eheart edly agree w i th the m aj ori ty that“[ b] ecause [G al es’ s] d etainm en t w o u ld q u ali fy a s a F o u rth A m en d m en t sei zu re, th e a rre sti n g o ffi ce rs w ere r equi r ed t o ei theratt ai n a s ear ch w arr antort o fi nd an ap pl i cabl e exc ept i on t o the w arr ant r equi r ementi n or dert o s ear ch G al es . ” ¶7 9. T he m aj or i t y i s m i s t a ke n i n h ol di ng tha tthe t ot a l i ty o f the pr e s e nt c i r cumst ance s p ro v id e s “ m o re th a n e n o u g h in fo rm a tio n fo r a re a so n a b le p e rso n to a sc e rta in a fa ir pr obabi l i ty thatG al es had j ustco m m i t t ed the cr i m e i n ques t i on. ” The m aj or i ty f i nds t hat pr obabl e ca us e j ust i fi ed O f f i cerT hom as ’ s arr es tof G al es beca us e, “[ w ] hi l e the i ni t i al des cr i pt i on of

the s us pectw as i nacc ur at e, O f f i cerT hom as no t i ced a s us pi ci ous i ndi vi dual
runni ng aw ay fr om the H yatt Foo d Mart . ” ( E m phas i s added. ) T hat G al es w as notrunni ng to w a rd th e H y a tt F o o d M a rt d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily m e a n th a t h e w a s ru n n in g “a w a y ” fro m it. T he m aj or i ty’ s choi ce of w or ds i m pl i es t hatO f

f i cerT hom as obs erved G al es actual l y f l eei ng th e sc e n e . T h is is w h o lly u n su b sta n tiate d in th e re c o rd o f th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g , sin c e it i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a tGa l e s wa s a tl e a s tf i v e c i ty bl o c k s a wa y f

r o m t h e Hya t tFo o d M a r ta tth e t i me of hi s bei ng ar r es t ed by T hom as . F ur ther , the maj or i ty s t at es that“O f f i cerT hom as s aw that the man b egan w al ki ng upon not i ci ng pol i ce pr es ence . ” W i th r es pect , thi s s t at ementi s not s uppor t ed i n t he r ecor d of the suppr es s i on hear i ng. T hom as equi vocat ed: “I thoughtI s aw

### 39

s om ebody runni ng butI kepton dr i vi ng s o I turned back a round and I s l ow ed dow n, and that ’ s w hen I s aw Bra ndon G al es . H e w as ki nd of tryi ng t o w al k t o try t o pl ay i tof f att hat t i m e l i ke he w as n’ trunni ng. ” O n cr os s exami nat i on, how ever , O ff i cer Th om as ackn ow l edg ed th a t, in h is w ri tte n re p o rt p re p a re d a t th e tim e , h e h a d s a id th a t G a le s w a s w a lk in g . ¶80 . S truggli ng t o supp ort i t s con t enti on that O ff i cer T ho m as had probab l e cause t o arr est G al es, the m aj ori ty says, “O ff i cer T ho m as not i ced t hat he w as sw eat i ng , app eared nervou s, and w as w ear i ng l i ghtc l othi ng on a col d D ece m berni ght . ” N o evi dence w as adduce d, ei ther a t th e su p p ression h ea ri n g o r at tri al, reg ard ing sp ec if icall y h o w co ld itw as th at nig h t. O f f i cerT hom as t es t i f

i ed thatG al es w as w ear i ng a “gr ay therm al - type s hi r t , l ong s l eeve , ” at the t i m e he w as appr ehende d. T he maj or i ty cont i nues t hat“G al es vol unt ar i l y s how ed O f f i cer T hom as w ads o f m on ey, w hi ch he c l ai m ed he ha d w on gambl i ng. ” The col l oquy betw een defense cou nsel and O ff i cer Th om as atthe sup press i on heari ng reads as f oll ow s: Q : H ow w as the m on ey g ott en o ut of his pan t s? A : H e pul l ed i touthi m s el f and s ai d, “Thi s m oney, I j us tl ef tthe gambl i ng h o u s e .” Q : W e ll, h o ld o n , let’s th in k a b o u t th is. Y o u ju st to ld m e h e h a d a b u lg e in h is p o c k e ts a n d y o u w o u ld n ’t re a c h in th e re a n d g e t it. A : R ig h t. B e fo re I c u ff h im , h e s a id , “ A ll I g o t is th is m o n e y fr o m g a m b lin g ,” and he s how ed me the money. I w as l i ke, “O kay, p ut i tback i n your pocket . ” H e puti tback i n hi s poc ket , and then I det ai ned hi m as a s us pect beca us e the m on ey w as bal l ed up. I tw as n’ tl i ke s om ebody had be en g a m b lin g a n d w o u ld h a v e fo ld e d it. Q : W el l , thatdepends . Y ou s ay, “bal l ed up. ” I n cr ap games , a l otof t i m es you w i n a t en and f

i ve as you go, a nd you ar e gr abbi ng i tand bal l i ng i tup, ar en’ tyou? A : I don’ tknow , I don’ tgambl e.

### 40

Q : O kay, then you r eal l y w oul dn’ tknow how the money w as s uppos ed t o be, w o u ld y o u ? A ll righ t, yo u d e ter m in e d h e h a d m o n e y o n h im , rig h t? A : A t th a t tim e , y e s . ¶81. T he maj or i ty s t at es t hat “O ff i cer T ho m as t hen aske d hi s di s pat chert o r epea t the d esc ri p ti o n o f th e su sp ec t. D ispa tch th en h ad a m o re d etail ed d esc ri p ti o n o f th e su sp ec t, d e s c ri b in g a n in d iv id u a l w e a ri n g a b la c k h o o d ie , li g h t b lu e je a n s , a n d b ro w n c a s u a l s h o e s .” B utthe r ecor d of

the s uppr es s i on hear i ng s ubs t ant i at es onl y thata s ubs equentdes cr i pt i on i dent i f i ed the s uspect as w ear i ng bl ue j eans . O f f i cerT hom as t es t i f

i ed thatan updat ed d e sc rip tio n “ sa id th a t th e y w e re b lu e jea n s o n c e I ha d the su sp e c t in c u sto d y .” T h e m a jo rity
r ecogni zes thatG al es di d nothave on a bl ack hoodi e. But w hen as ked by def ens e couns el at w hatpoi nt“w er e you advi s ed ordi d you l earn thatbr ow n s hoes w ere i nvol ved, ” O f f i cer T hom as ans w er ed “I can’ tr eca l l . ” W hen as ked w hetherhe l earned of t he br ow n shoes att he s cene of the cr i m e, O f

f i cerT hom as re pl i ed, “[ m ] aybe. ” O n re di r ect , O f f i cerT hom as t es t i f

i ed thatO f f i cerJ enki ns l at erc onf

i r m ed thatG al es w as the s us pectbe caus e “that ’ s the pant s and th a t’ s th e s h o e s th a t th e g u y h a d o n .” ¶82. A l thou gh , as obs erved by the m aj or i ty, the s t andar d f or pr obabl e caus e i s l es s t han “pr oof beyond a r eas onabl e doubt ” or“pr eponder ance of the evi dence , ” I

l linois v. G ates , 462 U .S . 2 1 3 , 2 3 5 , 1 0 3 S . C t. 23 1 7 , 7 6 L . E d . 2 d 5 2 7 (1 9 8 3 ), so m e c o n c re ten e ss a n d p a rticu lar ity a re n e v e rt h e le s s re q u ir e d . See R o a c h v. S ta te , 7 S o. 3d 91 1, 91 7 (200 9) ( “proba ble cause e x ists w h e n th e fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s w ith in a n o ffic e r’s k n o w led g e a re ‘su ffic ien t to ju stify a m a n o f a v e ra g e c a u tio n in th e b e lief th a t a c rim e h a s b e e n c o m m itt e d a n d th a t a part i cul ari ndi vi dual comm i t t ed i t . ’ ”) ( quot i ng State v. W oods , 86 6 S o. 2d 42 2, 42 6 (M i ss.

### 41

2003) ( quot i ng S tro de v. S ta te , 231 So. 2d 779, 782 ( M i s s . 1970) ) ) . T he U ni t ed St at es S up rem e C ou rth as h el d that“‘[ t ] he sub st ance o f al l the d efi nit i on s of pr ob able cause i s a r eas onabl e gr ound f

orbel i ef of gui l t . ’ ” Ma ry la n d

v. P rin g le , 5 4 0 U .S . 3 6 6 , 3 7 1 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 795, 157 L . E d. 2d 769 ( 2003) ( quot i ng Brine ga rv. U . S. , 338 U . S. 160, 175, 69 S. C t . 1302, 9 3 L . E d . 1 8 7 9 (1 9 4 9 )). In d e e d , “[t]o d e ter m in e w h e th e r a n o ffic e r h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to arr es tan i ndi vi dual , w e exa m i ne the eve nt s l eadi ng up t o the arr es t , and then dec i de ‘ w hether thes e h ist o ri ca l f

ac ts, v iew ed from the s tand p o int of an o b jecti v ely rea so n ab le po li ce o ffi ce r, amount t o’ pr obabl e ca us e. ” P rin g le , 540 U . S. a t371 ( quot i ng O r ne las v. U . S. , 517 U . S. 690, 6 9 6 , 1 1 6 S . C t. 1 6 5 7 , 1 3 4 L . E d . 2 d 9 1 1 (1 9 9 6 )) . ¶83 . M ere speculat i on on the part of O ff i cer T ho m as fai l ed t o provide him probab l e cause t o a rr e s tGa l e s , s i n c e n o n e o f th e i n f o r ma t i o n Of

f i c e rTh o ma s h a d a tt h a tpo i n ti n t i me c o n n e c te d G a le s w ith th e c ri m e in q u e s tio n . C f. P rin g le , 5 4 0 U .S . at 3 7 1 (“ a re a so n a b le o f f i c e rc o u l d c o n c l u d e th a tth e r e wa s p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e P r i n g l e c o mmi t t e d th e c r i me of pos s es s i on of

cocai ne, ” w her e “[ f

] i ve gl as s i ne baggi es of coc ai ne w er e behi nd the bac kse a t ar m re st a n d ac c e ss ib le to all thr e e m e n ,” o c c u p a n ts o f th e ca r.) I ag re e w ith th e m a jo rity thatG al es w as a r r es t ed w hen O f f i cerThom as ha ndcuf

f ed hi m . But , de s pi t e the f actthatthe a rr e s t w a s e ff

e c te d th e n , i tw as an inval i d a rres t , as no pr obabl e caus e f oran arr es texi s t ed and Thom as had no w arr ant . O f f i cerT ho m as’ s t es t i m ony atthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng r e ga r di ng Gal e s ’ s a c t i on s , h i s a pp e a r a nc e , a nd h i s d e mea no rwas c on tr a di c t ory and inco n sist en t. G ales w as at least five b lock s a w ay fro m the sc en e o f th e c ri m e a n d h is at ti re m at ched a n updat ed

de s cr i pt i on of

the s us pecti n onl y one pa r t i cul ar , hi s bl ue j eans, an extr emel y comm on i t em of c l othi ng. Itw as onl y af t erG al es had bee n arr es t ed thatthe s hoes

### At one point in its opinion, the ma

jorit y state s that “Ga le s volunt arily got out of the 4 

### poli cecr uis er when brought t o the crim e sc ene .”Conside ring that Gal es was sha ckl ed at t

he time , the a ssertion that hi s e xit from t he pol ic e c rui se r wa s voluntary s trains c re duli ty. Further , Inves ti gat or Are ndal e te stif ie d at thes uppre ss ion hearing that hepul le d Ga le s out of th e po lice cruiser. 42 the s us pecthad bee n w eari ng w er e i dent i f i ed as bei ng s i m i l art o thos e G al es w as w ear i ng. M or eover , the mer e f

actthatG al es had nondes cr i ptcas h i n hi s pos s es s i on and t hat i tw as bal l ed up i n w ads w as not , i n i t s el f , enough f

or a reasona bl e of

f i cert o connec thi m t o a p a rt ic u la r c ri m in a l a c t. 4 . G a le s ’s a r r e s t d o e s n o t q u a lif y a s a s e a r c h in c id e n t t o a r r e s t. ¶84. A ddi t i onal l y, the m aj or i ty m akes a quantum l eap t o arr i ve at i t s char act er i zat i on of G ales’s d eten ti o n as a sea rch incid en t to a law ful arrest. T h e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt h eld th at, “[u]nd er Chim el [ v. Ca lifo rn ia ] , pol i ce m ay s ear ch i nci dentt o a rr es tonl y the s pace w ith in a n a rre ste e ’s ‘ im m e d iate c o n tro l,’ m e a n in g ‘th e a re a fr o m w ith in w h ich h e m ig h t g a in pos s es s i on of a w eapon ordestruct i bl e evi dence . ’ ” Ari z ona v. G ant , 556 U . S. 332, 335, 129 S. C t . 1710, 173 L . E d. 2d 485 ( 2009) ( quot i ng Ch im e l v. Ca lifo rn ia , 395 U . S. 752, 763, 89 S . C t. 2 0 3 4 , 2 3 L . E d . 2 d 6 8 5 (19 6 9 ) ( over r ul ed on othergr ounds )) . G ant l i m i t ed the s cope o f Chim el

t o “r eachi ng di s t ance , ” and the Supr eme C our thel d that , beca us e G antw as handcuf f ed and s ecur ed atthe t i m e hi s c arw as s ear ched, he “cl ear l y w as notw i thi n r eac hi ng d is ta n c e o f h is c a r a t th e tim e o f t h e s e a rc h .” I d. at344. I n the pr es entcas e, the of f i cer h an d cu ffed G ales, pu t him into the p atrol ca r, d rov e h im to the scen e o f th e c ri m e, an d there s ear ched hi m . B ut , as i n G ant , G al es w as sec ur ed atthe t i m e the s ear ch occ urr ed and pr i or 4 t o the s ear ch, f

ul l y amel i or at i ng any conc erns overpol i ce s af ety. T he s ear ch- i nci dent - t o-

### 43

arr estexcep t i on t o the w arr ant r equ i rem ent i s thu s i nap po si t e fr om the pr es entci rcum st ances, s i nce “ pos s es s i on of

a w eapon ordes truct i bl e evi dence ” w as a pr act i cal i m pos s i bi l i t y f or G al es w hi l e he w as i n pol i ce c us t ody and handc uf f ed. ¶85. T he m aj or i ty al s o err oneous l y s ugges t s that the pr es ent s ear ch qual i f i es as a sear ch i nci de ntt o a rr e s tbe c a us e i tw a s “ s ub s t a nt i al l y cont empora neous w i th the arr es t ” and “ O f f i cer T hom as arr es t ed G al es and i m m edi at el y br oughthi m t o the cr i m e s cene . ” The U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld , h o w e v e r, th a t: T he rul e al l ow i ng cont empora neous sea r ches i s j us t i f i ed, f orexampl e, by the need t o s ei ze w eapons and otherthi ngs w hi ch mi ghtbe us ed t o as s aul tan of f i ceror ef f ectan es cape , as w el l as by the nee d t o pr eventthe des truct i on of evi dence of

the cr i m e— thi ngs w hi ch mi ghteas i l y happen w her e t he w eapon o r e v id e n c e is o n th e a c c u s e d ’ s p e rs o n o r u n d e r h is im m e d ia te c o n tr o l. B ut thes e j us t i

f i cat i ons ar e abs ent

w her e a s ear ch is r em ot e i n t i m e orplace f r om the a rres t . O nce an ac cus ed is underar r es tand i n cus t ody, then a s ear ch m ade at another pl ace, w i tho ut a w arrant, is si m ply noti ncidentt o the arrest . Pr e s ton v. U

. S. , 376 U . S. 364, 367, 84 S. C t . 881, 11 L. E d. 2d 777 ( 1964) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng Agnel

lo v. U . S. , 2 6 9 U . S . 2 0 , 3 1 , 4 6 S . C t. 4 , 7 0 L . E d . 2 d 1 4 5 (1 9 2 5 )). T h e C o u rt ther e hel d thata s ear ch w as unr eas onabl e beca us e i tw as “ t oo r emot e i n t i m e orpl ace t o have be e n mad e a s i nc i de nt a l t o the ar r es t . ” I d. at368. I n the pr es entcas e, a w arr ant l es s s ear ch
w as m ade a tthe s cene of the cr i m e af

t erG al es had bee n arr es t ed, pl ace d i n pol i ce c us t ody, and tr ans por t ed ac r os s the ci ty. T he s ear ch of G al es, as i n P r es ton , “i s s i m pl y noti nci dent t o the arr es t . ” I

d. a t 3 6 7 . 5. T he t ri al court com m i t t ed reve rs i bl e err or by f ai l i ng t o grant G al es t he m ot i on t o s uppr e s s t o whi c h he was e nt i t l e d. ¶86. H er e, the pol i ce pers e vi ol at ed G al es ’ s r i ght s by appr ehendi ng hi m i n the abs ence of re a so n a b le s u sp icio n , b y a rre stin g h im in th e a b se n c e o f p ro b a b le c a u se , an d b y h a u lin g h im

### 44

t o the s cene of

the cr i m e t o be se ar ched i n the abs ence of any l egal author i ty f

ors o doi ng. C ons equent l y, the evi dence obt ai ned as the f rui tof thi s unl aw f

ul det ent i on ough tt o have b e e n e x c lu d e d . T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “[w ]e n e e d n o t h o ld th a t all evi dence i s ‘ f

rui tof the poi s onous t r ee’ si m pl y becaus e i tw oul d nothave come t o l i ghtbut f ort he i l l egal act i ons of the pol i ce. ” W ongSun , 371 U . S. at487- 88. “R ather , the more apt ques t i on i n s uch a c as e i s ‘ w hether , gr ant i ng es t abl i s hm entof the pr i m ary i l l egal i ty, the e v id e n c e to w h ich in sta n t o b jec tio n is m a d e h a s b e e n co m e at b y e x p lo itatio n o f th a t il leg a lity ori ns t ead by m eans s uf

f i ci ent l y di s t i ngui s habl e t o be pur ged of the pr i m ary t ai nt . ’ ” I

d. at488 (c it in g M a g u ir e , E v ide n c e o f G u ilt , 221 ( 1959) ) . I n thatcas e, the pol i ce, upon hear i ng t hat one “Bl acki e Toy” sol d an ounce of he r oi n t o a n i nf

or m ant , a rr es t ed a J ames W ah Toy i n the abs ence of

any proba bl e caus e t hathe w as t he sa m e per s on soughti n the i nves t i gat i on. W ong Sun , 371 U . S. at481. T he Supr eme C our te xcl uded the nar cot i cs obt ai ned thr ough an i l l egal arr es tbeca us e they “w er e ‘ come atby the expl oi t at i on of thati l l egal i ty. ’ ” I

d . at488. H er e, as i n W ongSun , the pr operr emedy i s excl us i on, s i nce the ca s h obt ai ned and i dent i f i ed w as “c o m e a t by ex p loit ati o n o f” the il lega li ty. N o m it igating fea ture se rve s to p u rge the p ri m ary ta in t o f t h e ille g a lity o f t h e in itia l s to p , th e c o n tin u e d d e te n tio n , a n d th e s e a rc h . ¶87. L i kew i s e, thi s C our t has hel d that s uppr es s i on w as the appr opr i at e r emedy w her e no “r eas onabl e gr ounds ” j us t i f i ed “the i nves t i gat ory s t op and s ubs equents ear ch and s ei zur e of e vi de nc e f

r om Eadd y. ” E addy , 6 3 S o . 3 d a t 1 2 1 6 . T h e re , p o lice sto p p e d E a d d y ’s v e h icle based o n the t i p o f an i nform ant that a di ff erenti nd i vidual forw ho m the p oli ce had an arr est w a rr a n t w a s in to w n . I

d. at 12 1 2 . U p o n ap p roa ch ing the c ar, th e o ffi ce r “s a w th e b u tt o f a gun undert he dr i ver ’ s sea t , smel l ed al cohol , and saw an empt y l i quorbot t l e. ” I d. A p a t - d o wn

### 45

s ear ch of

E addy r evea l ed “tw o pi l l bot t l es thateac h appea r ed t o hol d coca i ne. ” I d. Suppr es s i on w as the appr opr i at e r emedy becaus e the i ni t i al appr ehens i on w as i nval i d at i ncept i on a nd the pol i ce l acke d “ r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o make an i nves t i gat ory s t op. ” I d . at 1214. I n the pr es entcas e, t he i ni t i al s t op of G al es w as i nval i d because i tw as notbas ed on re a so n a b le s u sp icio n . T h e c a sh in G a les ’s p o ss e ss io n , o b tain e d a s fru it o f a n ill e g a l ar re st, s houl d nothave been us ed agai ns thi m attr i al . A s i n E addy , the m o tio n to su p p re ss sh o u ld h a v e b e e n g ra n te d . 6. C oncl usi on ¶88. O f

f i cerT hom as art i cul at ed no r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o j us t i f y hi s i ni t i al appr ehens i on of G al es . G a l e s ’ s c on t i nu e d d e t e nt i on a nd s ub s e qu e nts e a r c h h a d n o b a s i s i n l a w a nd cons t i tut ed pr eci s el y the s or tof unr eas onabl e conduc ton the partof the governm entw hi ch i s pr ecl uded by the Four th A m endmentt o the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tuti on and A r t i cl e 3, S e c tio n 2 3 , o f th e M is s iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n . I w o u ld re v e rse a n d re m a n d fo r a n e w trial, a b se n t th e fru it o f th e ill e g a l ar re st. KI NG, J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.