I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - KA- 0 1 1 9 1 - S CT HEC TOR HER NA NDEZ GONZ AL ESAN

D J UAN GO NZAL EZ- TORRES v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 22/ 2006 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . R O B E R T P . C H A M B E R L IN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: DA VI D G . HI LL D. GI LL BA KER AT T OR NE Y 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 : J OHN R . HE NR Y DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN W . CH AM P I 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 - 08/ 30/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D L A M A R , JJ. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A l aw enf

or cementof

f i cers t opped a vehi cl e w hi ch di d nota ppeart o ha ve a t ag. A f t er obt ai ni ng cons entt o s ear ch the vehi cl e, the of f i cerf ound s i xty pounds of

m ar i j uana i ns i de. A lth o u g h th e v e h icle h a d n o re g u lar tag , ith a d a te m p o ra ry ta g ta p e d to th e b a c k w in d o w in th e lo w e r-le ft c o rn e r. T h e q u e stio n p re se n ted is w h e th e r th e o ffic e r la c k e d re a so n a b le s us pi ci on t o s t op the vehi cl e, r ender i ng the s ear ch im properand the evi dence obt ai ned i nadmi s s i bl e.

### 2 S TATEM ENT OF THE FACTS ¶2. W hi l e w ai t i ng i n the medi an on H i gh w a y 7 8 n earO l i ve B r anch, M i s s i s s i ppi , H i ghw ay Patr ol T r ooperM / Sgt . G ayl e M cM ull i n o bserved an east -boun d, blue D od ge D urango , w hic h appea r ed t o have no t ag di s pl ayed. T r ooperM cM ul l i n st opped the D ur ango and e ngaged the dr i ver , i dent i f

i ed as H ect orH ernandez G on zal es, i n a conve r s at i on conce rni ng hi s tr avel r out e. T r ooperM cM ul l i n not ed on heri ni t i al , w r i t t en r eportthat , as s he ques t i oned G onzal es abouthi s des t i nat i on, s he bec ame sus pi ci ous beca us e hi s dem eanorchange d. Speci f i cal l y, s he r eport ed thatthe dr i verappea r ed “ve ry nervous ” and l ooked t o the pas s enger , J uan G onzal ez Tor r es , w hen ques t i oned abouthi s di r ect i on of tr avel . T r ooperM cM ul l i n w as l at er t o t es t i f y, “ W hen I a s ked hi m w hi ch r out e he w as goi ng, he l ooked overt o the pas s enger , l i ke t o g etan idea of w here t o go or w hat t o say, and by his bo dy l ang uag e and his nervou sness a n d th e o d o r o f m a ri

ju a n a , I c a lle d fo r a c a n in e .” ¶3 . T roo p er M cM u ll in n o ti fi ed G o n za les th at sh e p u lled the v eh icl e o v er b ec au se th ere w as no t ag di s pl ayed on the vehi cl e. G onzal es poi nt ed outthe t empora ry papert ag pos t ed on the l ow erl ef

thand cornerof

the r earw i ndow of

the vehi cl e. T r ooperM cM ul l i n t es t i f i ed thats he di d notsee the p aper t ag unt i l the dr i verpoi nt ed i toutt o herand s he s hi ned her f l as hl i ghton the ar ea. T r ooperM cM ul l i n then r adi oed TrooperB ri an M agee , the ca ni ne of f i cer , f orbackup w hi l e s he compar ed the paper s G onzal es had gi ven herw i th the i nf or m at i on on the t ag. B y the t i m e s he f i ni s hed w r i t i ng outthe t ag ci t at i on, T r ooperM agee and the ca ni ne arr i ved. ¶4. T he dr i ver , G onzal es , and pas s enger , T orr es , conse nt ed t o a vehi cl e se ar ch. T r ooper M agee f ound m ar i

j uana r es i due and l oos e m ar i j uana i n the ce nt ercons ol e ar ea of the vehi cl e,

### 3

nece s s i t at i ng a f

ur ther sear ch. T he ca ni ne al ert ed t o the bac k r earpas s engerdoor . T he vehi cl e w as then t aken t o a s ecur e l ocat i on and s ear ched f urther. T he of

f i cer s f ound a s ui t cas e in the bac k s eatw hi ch cont ai ned tw enty- f i ve bundl es , orr oughl y s i xty pounds , of m ar i j uana. ¶ 5 . In Ja n u a ry 2 0 0 5 , th e D e S o to C o u n ty G ra n d Ju ry re tu rn e d a n in d ictm e n t ag a in st b o th G onzal es and T orr es f

orpos s es s i on of

a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e. T he def ens e f i l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s the evi dence , cl ai m i ng T r ooperM cM ul l i n di d nothave r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o st op t he vehi cl e. T he tr i al j udge hel d a suppr es s i on hear i ng and t ook the t es t i m ony of

T r ooper s M cM ul l i n and B r i an M agee . T he j udge then r eques t ed thatthe part i es br i ef

the i s s ue, w hi ch he na rr ow ed t o the “a ctual i ni t i al s t op and up t o the poi ntof w her e the of

f i ceri ndi cat e[ d] s he s m el l ed m ar i j uana. ” A f

t erf ul l br i ef i ng a nd a r evi ew of

the pl eadi ngs , the tr i al j udge enter ed an or derdenyi ng the def endant s ’ m ot i on t o s uppr es s the evi dence . ¶6. T her eaf

t er , the def

endant s reached an agr eementw i th the St at e w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a s t i pul at i on of

cert ai n f actual f i ndi ngs , and an a gr eementt o a benc h tr i al on a new char ge of pos s es s i on of

a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance, r es ervi ng unt o the def endant s the r i ghtt o appea l the i s s ue bef or e us t oday. ¶7. The de f

e nd a nt s pr oc e e de d t o tr i a l on the s t i pu l a t i on , a dmi t t i ng cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of t he mar i

j ua na . M or e ov e r , the d e f e nd a nt s wai ve d the i rr i gh tt o a j ury a nd r i ghtof c o n fr o n ta tio n , re ly in g in s te a d o n a p p e lla te re v ie w o f t h e s u p p re s s io n h e a ri n g to o v e rtu rn th e ir con vict i on s. O n the r ecord, the d efendan t s’ c o u n sel not ed, “ou r def ense i n thi s case i s a tec h n ica l d e fe n se , an d w e ’re sim p ly try in g to g e t th is c a se o u t of the [t ]ri a l [ c ]ou rt a n d in to

### 4

the [ a] ppel l at e [ c] our t . ” T he t r i al j udge, upon admi t t i ng the s t i pul at i on of f act s i nt o the r ecor d, f ound s uf f i ci entevi dence t o convi ctG onzal es and T orr es , and s ent ence d them each t o fi ft een y ears i n the cust od y o f the M i ssi ssi pp i D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s. ¶8. T he def

endan t s ass erttw o err or s on appea l : ( 1) the tr i al courterr ed i n admi t t i ng evi dence uncover ed af

t erthe of f i cer ’ s ba s i s f

orpul l i ng the vehi cl e overpr oved unf ounded, th e re fo re m a k in g th e s to p ille g a l; an d (2 ) th e trial c o u rt e rre d in fa ili n g to su p p re ss a ll s ta te m e n ts m a d e p ri o r t o th e d e fe n d a n ts b e in g M ir a n d iz e d in S p a n is h . A N A L Y S IS ¶9. A s s t at ed i n Ca rn e y v. S ta te : T he rul e i s si m pl e. U nl es s the mar i j uana w as di s cover ed dur i ng a l egal s ear ch, it m a y n o t b e se ize d . If it w a s illeg a lly se ize d , itm a y n o t b e a d m itt e d in to evi dence . I ti s ther ef

or e i m por t antt o exam i ne t he l egal i ty of the part i cul ar i ntrusi on s w hich enab l ed the po l i ce t o see t his m ari j uan a to det erm i ne if

these in tru s io n s w e re o u ts id e th e le g itim a te s c o p e [o f t h e p o lic e ’s a u th o ri ty ]. Car ney , 525 So. 2d 776, 785 ( M i s s . 1988). A ccor di ngl y, t hi s C our tm us tdet erm i ne w hether T rooper M cM ull i n w as j ust i fi ed ini t i al l y in st op ping t he d efendan t s. I. ¶1 0 . T he d efendan t s con tend that T roo p er M cM u ll in h ad n o “sp ec if ic an d art i culabl e fact s” fro m w h ich a “ re a so n a b le s u sp icio n ” o f a tra ffic o ffe n se o r o th e r c rim e c o u ld b e g lea n e d to s uppor tand j us t i f

y a tr af f i c s t op ora T

er r y s to p . See T

e rr y v. O h io , 3 9 2 U .S . 1 , 8 8 S . C t. 1868, 20 L . E d. 2d 889 (1968) . T he st andar d of r evi ew f orr eas onabl e s us pi ci on i s s om ew hat m o re co m pli cat ed than other s t and ards by w hich this C ou rtr eview s tri al co u rt det erm i nat i ons . T he U nit ed S t at es Supr eme C our thas s oughtt o cl ar i f y the s t andar d by s t at i ng:The United States Supreme Court has noted that bac kground facts and inferenc es made by 1 loc al t rial judg es and

law enf orc ement of

fi cer s p rov idetheco nte xt f or t hehis torical f

act s, an d “ wh en seen to ge ther . . . d eservede feren ce. ” Ornelas , 517 U.S. at 699. 

### 5 T he pr i nci pal co m po nent s of a det erm i nat i on of

r eas onabl e s us pi ci on or pr obabl e ca us e w i l l be the eve nt s w hi ch occ urr ed l eadi ng up t o the s t op or s ear ch, and then t he dec i s i on w hetherthes e hi s t or i cal f act s , vi ew ed f

r om the sta n d p o in t o f a n o b

jec tiv e ly re a so n a b le p o lice o ffic e r, am o u n t to re a so n a b le s us pi ci on ort o pr obabl e ca us e. O r ne las v. U

nite d States , 5 1 7 U . S . 6 9 0 , 6 9 6 , 1 1 6 S . C t. 1 6 5 7 , 1 3 4 L . E d . 2 d 9 1 1 (19 9 6 ). Fur ther , the Supr eme C ourtnot ed thatthe “f i r s tpartof

the ana l ys i s i nvol ves onl y a det erm i nat i on of

hi s t or i cal f

act s , butthe s econd i s a mi xed qu est i on of l aw and f

act . ” I d. T h u s, h isto ric a l fa c ts a re re v iew e d o n ly fo r cle a r er ro r, w h ile d e ter m in a tio n s o f re a so n a b le 1 s u s p ic io n a re re v ie w e d d e n o v o . I d . a t 6 9 9 ; Floyd v. Cit

y of Cr ys tal Springs , 749 So. 2d 110, 1 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). ¶11. T he Four th A m end m entt o the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on pr ovi des thatal l per s ons s hal l be s ecur e “i n thei rper s ons , hous es , paper s , and ef f ect s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches a n d s e iz u re s ” a n d th a t “ n o w a rr a n ts s h a ll i s s u e , b u t u p o n p ro b a b le c a u s e .” U .S . C o n s t., a m e n d . IV ; Mi ch i

ga n v. S u m m ers , 452 U . S. 692, 101 S. C t . 2587, 69 L . E d. 2d 340 ( 1981) (in c o rp o ra tin g th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t to s ta te s th ro u g h th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t); s ee als o M iss . C o n st. a rt. III, § 2 3 (1 9 7 2 ); Floyd , 74 9 S o . 2d at 1 1 4 (no ti n g th at th e F o u rth A m endmentt o the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and A r t i cl e I I I , S ect i on 23 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on cont ai n al m os ti dent i c a l l a ngua ge expr es s i ng an i ndi vi dual s r i ghtt o be f r ee f r om u n rea so n ab le sea rch es a n d seizu res). ¶12. B oth thi s C our tand the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thave r ecogni zed s ever al excep t i on s t o the Fo urth A m end m ent’ s general proscr i pti on againstw arr antl ess s earches.Th e Mi ssi ssipp i S up reme C ourt h as reco gnize d e xc ep tio ns to t hewarrantl esssearch 2 prohibiti on in the following cas es, inter a lia : Wh ite v. St ate , 84 2 So . 2 d 5 65 (Mi ss. 20 03 ) (g oo d f aith ex cep tio n); Sh oo k v

. S tat e , 55 2 S o. 2d

84 1 (M iss . 1 98 9) ( co ns ent ex cep tio n); Ta ylo r v. St ate , 733 So. 2d 251 (Miss. 1999) ( exigent ci rcumstances excepti on and plain vie w exception). 

### 6 O f i nte r es ti n thi s cas e i s the w arr antexce pt i on f ornon- cus t odi al i nves t i gat ory s t ops , al so kn ow n as T

erry st op s. 2 ¶13. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas not ed thats w i f tand nec es s ary act i ons by off i cers “m ustbe tes t ed b y the Fo urth A m end m ent’ s general proscr i pti on against unr eas onabl e s ear ches a nd s ei zur es . ” T erry , 3 9 2 U .S . a t 2 0 . “ T o sto p a n d tem p o ra rily d e tain i s notan arr es t , and t he ca s es hol d thatgi ven r eas onabl e ci r cumst ance s an of f i cerm ay s t op and det ai n a per s on t o re s ol ve an ambi guous s i tuat i on w i thouthavi ng s uf f i ci entknow l edge t o j us t i f y a n arr es t . ” S in g leta ry v . S ta te , 318 So. 2d 873, 876 ( M i s s . 1975) . M or eover , the Supr eme C our tnot ed thatiti s i m per at i ve thatthe f act s be j udged aga i ns tan obj ect i ve s t andar d: “W oul d the f

act s avai l abl e t o the of

f i ceratthe mom entof

the s ei zur e orthe s ear ch

‘ w arr anta man of

r eas onabl e ca ut i on i n the bel i ef’ thatthe ac t i on t aken w as appr opr i at e?” T erry , 392 U . S. at21- 22 ( ci t i ng Car r ol l v. U nited States , 2 6 7 U. S. 1 3 2 , 4 5 S. Ct . 2 8 0 , 6 9 L. E d . 5 4 3 (1 9 2 5 ); B e c kv. O h io , 3 7 9 U . S . 8 9 , 9 6 -97 , 8 5 S . C t. 2 2 3 , 1 3 L . E d . 2 d 1 4 2 (19 6 4 )). ¶ 1 4 . T h e tra d iti o n a l re a so n a b len e ss sta n d a rd u n d e r U .S . S u p re m e C o u rt ju risp ru d e n c e is det erm i ned by bal anci ng an i ndi vi dual ’ s pri vacy i nt er es t s agai ns tl egi t i m at e governm ent al in te re s ts . S e e e .g ., V

ernoni a S ch. D is t

. 47J v. A cton , 515 U . S. 646, 652- 53, 115 S. C t . 2386, 132 L . E d. 2d 564 ( 1995) . T o det erm i ne w hetherthe s ear ch and s ei zur e w er e unr eas onabl e, the i nqui ry i s tw o- f

ol d: ( 1) w hetherthe of

f i cer ’ s a ct i on w as j us t i f

i ed ati t s i ncept i on, and ( 2) w hetheri tw as r eas onabl y r el at ed i n s cope t o the ci r cumst ance s w hi ch j us t i f i ed theThrough out th e re co rd, Troope r Mc Mulll in n ev er w av ere d in thi s as ser tio n. In h er initial 3 written r eport, she spe cifically not ed that the Dodge had “no t ag d is played.” Additi onally, at the su pp res sio n h earing , M cMullin repe ate dly tes tif ied to t hisfa ct. Q: Tell me what the basis of the st op was on that eveni ng. A: He did not have a ta g, proper tag di splayed on the ve hicle. 

### 7 in te rf e re n c e in th e fi rs t p la c e . T erry , 392 U . S. at19- 20. I n or dert o s at i s f y the f i r s tpr ong, the l aw enf

or cementof

f i cerm us tbe abl e t o poi ntt o “s peci f i c and a r t i cul abl e f

act s w hi ch, ta k e n to g e th e r w ith ra tio n a l in fe re n c e s fr o m th o s e fa c ts , re a s o n a b ly w a rr a n t th a t in tru s io n .” I d. at21. II. ¶15. T he def

endant s as s ertthatthei rvehi cl e had a t ag i n pl ai n vi ew and, ther ef or e, T r ooper M cM ul l i n had no r easona bl e s us pi ci on thatthe vehi cl e had no t ag; and bec aus e Troope r M cM ul l i n had no pr obabl e ca us e orr eas onabl e sus pi ci on t o pul l them over , al l f rui t s of the i l l egal s t op s houl d be s uppr es s ed. A ccor di ngl y, w e s hal l s etf or th the s peci f

i c f act s and ci r cumst ance s of

the s t op. ¶ 1 6 . T ro o p e r M c M u lli n re p e a ted ly sta ted th a t sh e p u lled o v e r th e d e fe n d a n ts’ v e h icle beca us e i tappea r ed nott o have a t ag. Speci f i cal l y, s he t es t i f

i ed thatupon appr oachi ng the 3 dr i ver , s he “di d nots ee a t ag atal l . ” A l though no evi dence of t i ntr at i ng w as el i ci t ed atthe su p p ression h ea ri n g , testi m o n y ind icated tha t th e w ind o w s o f the D o d g e D u ran g o w ere v ery dark. T r ooperM cM ul l i n t es t i f i ed, “A f t erI t ol d M r . G onzal es the r eas on f orthe s t op, he poi nt ed outt o me thathe di d ha ve a papert ag on the bac k w i ndow , butI di d nots ee i t . T he w in d o w w a s v e ry tin ted , an d I d id n o t se e itu n til I w a lk e d b a c k the re an d loo k e d at it w ith m y fl a s h lig h t.”

### 8

¶17. T w o phot ogr aphs of the bac k of

the vehi cl e show i ng the t ag w er e i ntr oduced. T he f i r s twas t a ke n f

r om the a ng l e o f

the Tr oo pe r ’ s c a rb e hi nd the Dur a ng o a tthe t i m e of t he traf fi c st op . W hil e a w hit e r ect ang l e i s vis i ble i n the l ow er l efthan d corner of the b ack g l ass, th e n u m b e rs o r a n y id e n tify in g m a rk s a re ill e g ib le f ro m th a t d ista n c e . A d d iti o n a lly , itis evi dentthatatl eas tone others etof tr oopercarl i ght s ar e s hi ni ng i n thatdi r ect i on, ther eby i l l um i nat i ng the w i ndow s f ur ther . N o othert ag i s di s pl ayed on the bac k t ai l gat e. ¶ 1 8 . T h e se c o n d p h o to g ra p h is a c lo se -u p p ictu re o f th e tag w ith th e n u m b e rs c lea rly v isi b le. Itap p ea rs th at, in this p h o tog rap h , o n e li g h t i s c o n ce n tr ated in the tag are a. T roo p ers M c M u lli n a n d M a g e e n o ted th a t th e p h o to g ra p h s a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e w e re tak e n w ith m any l i ght s s hi ni ng ont o the papert ag, w i thoutw hi ch the t ag w as i ndi s t i ngui s habl e. I nt er es t i ngl y, T r ooperM cM ul l i n i s s ued a c i t at i on t o G onzal es f orhavi ng no t ag di s pl ayed, e v e n th o u g h sh e n o ted th e tem p o ra ry tag n u m b e r o n th e tick e t. ¶ 1 9 . T h e S tate co n ten d s th a t, e v e n if th e v e h icle h a d a v a lid tag , itw a s n o t “c o n sp icu o u sly d isp lay e d ,” a s re q u ire d b y the sta tu te. T h u s, the S tate arg u e s, T ro o p e r M c M u lli n w a s w ith in herauthor i ty t o pul l the vehi cl e overt o chec k f ora t ag, and t o chec k the expi r at i on of the t ag ( i f found) or t o see i f

i tw as val i d. T her ef

or e, the St at e mai nt ai ns , the s t op w as l egal and not atodds w i th the Four th A m endment . W e agr ee. ¶20 . T he st atute ati ssue provides that veh i cl es operat ed on M i ssi ssi pp i ’s highw ays m ust h a v e tag s “ c o n sp icu o u sly d isp lay e d o n th e v e h icle b e in g o p e ra ted in s u c h a m a n n e r th a t it m ay b e e asil y read . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 7 -19 -23 (R ev . 20 0 6 ). In li g h t o f th is cl ea r st atuto ry l anguage , i ti s notenough t hat t he veh i cl e ac tual l y had a t ag. I f the t ag w as not51 7 U .S . 8 06 , 1 16 S. Ct . 1 76 9, 13 5 L . E d. 2d 89 (19 96 ). 4 23 9 F .3 d 6 78 , 6 80 -81 (5t h C ir. 20 01 ). 5 

### 9 “ c o n sp icu o u sly d isplay ed ” a n d “e asil y rea d , ” T roo p er M cM u ll in w as fu ll y justi fi ed in m aki ng the s t op. ¶21. G onzal es and Torr es ar gue thatbeca us e Troope rM cM ul l i n’ s w r i t t en r eportr egar di ng the i nci dentcont ai ned no r ef er ence s t o herdet ect i on of the odorof

m ar i j uana, the s t op w as pr et extual . T he def

endant s ci t e W

hre n v. U

nited States and U

n itedS ta tes v. E sc a la n te in 4 5 s uppor tof

thei rposi t i on thatthe tr af f i c s t op w as i l l egal . H ow ever , both W hr e n and E s c a la n te a r e d i s t i ng ui s ha bl e f r om thi s c a s e . I n e a c h of tho s e c a s e s , the o f

f i c erhad a s us pi ci on thats om e type of cr i m i nal act i vi ty w as occurr i ng butw as notaw ar e of w hatthat a c tiv ity w a s . See E sc a la n te , 2 3 9 F .3 d a t 6 7 9 ; W h r e n , 5 1 7 U . S . at 80 8 . T h e o ffi ce r th ere fore u sed the p rete x t o f a tr affic st o p to fu rth er h is i n v esti g ati o n . In th e p rese n t case , h o w ev er, the tr i al courtf

ound thatT r ooperM cM ul l i n r eas onabl y s us pect ed the D odge D ur ango had no t ag. T he r ecor d cont ai ns ampl e evi dence t o s upp or tthatf i ndi ng, and i tw i l l notbe d istu rb e d o n a p p e a l. ¶22. T he def

endant s al s o ci t e cases i n w hi ch thi s C our tand the C our tof A ppeal s have rul ed thata ct i ons w hi ch do notc ons t i tut e cr i m i nal of f ens es a r e notobj ect i ve bas es f ora s t op, a n d , th e re fo re , th e s to p s a re ille g a l. McN e e ly v . S ta te , 2 7 7 S o . 2 d 4 3 5 (M iss. 1 9 7 3 ); Co u lde ry v. S ta te , 890 So. 2d 959 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004) . I n Cou ldery , the of f i ceri ni t i at ed a traffi c sto p for d ri v ing in the left -ha n d lane on th e interstate. A ft er rev iew ing the s tatu tory of f ens es t he of

f i cerputforth as the bas i s fort he ci t at i on, t he C our tconcl uded thatthe ac t i ons of the dr i verdi d notconst i tut e a cr i m i nal off ens e – thatdr i vi ng i n the l ef t - hand l ane on the

### 10

i nt er s t at e w as noti l l egal . T her ef or e, the of

f i cer ’ s mi s appr ehens i on of the l aw pr ecl uded the s to p fr o m b e in g v a lid . Cou ldery , 8 9 0 S o . 2 d a t 9 6 3 . ¶23. H er e, T r ooperM cM ul l i n not ed i n heri ni t i al , w r i t t en r eportand t es t i f i ed atthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng thatthe purpos e f orthe s t op w as “no val i d t ag di s pl ayed. ” H i ghw ay Patr ol off

i cer s have be en gi ven the s t atut ory author i ty t o enf or ce a l l tr af

f i c l aw s , rul es and re g u la tio n s o f t h e S ta te o f M is s is s ip p i. Se e M i s s . C ode A nn. § 45- 3- 21( 1) ( a) ( 2007) ( R ev. 2 0 0 4 ). F a ilu re to c o n sp icu o u sly d isp lay a tag in su c h a m a n n e r th a t itm a y e a sily b e re a d is an of f ens e underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 27- 19- 323 ( R ev. 2006) . M or eover , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 27- 19- 40 r egul at es “s peci al i n- tr ans i tt ags ” l i ke thatati s s ue her e, and r equi r es thats uch t ag be “ pr oper l y di s pl ayed” and “di s pl ayed i n pl ai n vi ew . ” See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 2 7 -19 -40 (1), ( 1 )(c), (4)(R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶24. T r ooperM cM ul l i n tes t i f i ed s he s t opped the D odge D ur ango bec aus e s he s us pect ed a viol at i on of t hese law s. T he st atutes requir e no ton l y the exi st ence o f a val i d tag, bu tal so that the tag b e d isplay ed in p lai n v iew . E v iden ce w as p rod u ce d th at th e D o d g e D u ran g o ’s w i ndow s w er e t i nt ed, m aki ng t he t ag di f f i cul tt o see or r ead. I ndeed, even though a val i d t ag w as t aped i ns i de the bac k w i ndow of the vehi cl e, the tr oop eri s s ued a tr af f i c ci t at i on f

or vi ol at i on of

the s t atut e. ¶25. Fr om the evi dence i n t he r ecor d, w e ca nnots ay thatthe tr i al courtcomm i t t ed cl ear e rro r in fin d in g re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to m a k e th e s to p . T h u s , th e sto p w a s ju stifie d a t it s i ncept i on, and the St at e has s at i s f i ed the f i r s tpr ong. ¶26. A ddi t i on al l y, beca us e the s ubs equents ear ch of the vehi cl e w as i nci dent al t o the of f i cers m el l i ng m ar i

j uana e m anat i ng f

r om the vehi cl e, a nd va l i d c ons entt o s ear ch w as gi ven

### 11

by the def

endant s , an ana l ys i s of

the s econd pr ong i s unnece s s ary. H avi ng f ound the i ni t i al s t op r eas onabl e, w e af

f i r m the tr i al court ’ s admi s s i on of evi dence . I V. ¶ 2 7 . T h e d e fe n d a n ts n e x t co n ten d th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in fa ilin g to su p p re ss a ll s ta te m e n ts m a d e p ri o r t o th e irb e in g M ir a n d iz e d in S p a n is h . See Mir anda v. Ari z ona , 384 U . S. 436, 86 S. Ct . 1602, 16 L . Ed. 2d 694 ( 1966) . A f t era thor ough r evi ew of the rec or d, how ever , w e w er e unabl e t o fi nd w her e the tr i al courtcons i der ed any s t at ement s m ade pr i or to th e d efe n d an ts be ing n o ti fi ed o f th eir Mir anda ri ghti n S pani s h. I ndeed, t he r ecor d i s cl ear



### Sthe tr i al j udge bas ed al l fi ndi ngs on the s t i pul at i on of f act s s ubm i t t ed i nt o evi dence by the defend ants them sel ves. ¶28. W her e an ar gum enthas ne verbeen r ai s ed bef or e the tr i al court , w e r epea t edl y have h eld th at “a tr ial jud g e w il l n o t be fo u n d in erro r on a m att er n o t prese n ted to the tri al co u rt f ora dec i s i on. ” P urv is v. B ar nes , 791 So . 2 d 199, 203 ( M i s s . 2001) . T hi s i s s ue i s not p ro p e rly b e fo re th is C o u rt, th u s, it is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶29. W e f

i nd thatT r ooperM cM ul l i n w as j us t i f i ed i n herr eas onabl e s us pi ci on thatthe def endant s ’ vehi cl e bor e no t ag. T her ef or e, the i ni t i al s t op w as l egal , because t he tr ooper c o u ld a rticu late a n o b

jec tiv e b a sis fo r th e tra ffic sto p . B e c a u se th e iss u e o f w h e th e r th e S tate coul d i ntr oduce s t at ement s m ade bef or e the def

endant s w er e M i r andi zed i n Spani s h w as not p re se n ted to th e trial c o u rt, th is C o u rt is p re c lu d e d fro m a d d re ss in g it o n a p p e a l. ¶30. AS T O HE CT OR HE RN AN DE Z GON Z AL E S : CO NV I CT I ON OF P OS S ES S I ON OF A CONT ROLL ED S UB S TA NCE , TO- W I T: M ARI J UANA, F IV E (5) K IL O G R A M S O R M O R E A N D SE N T E N C E O F F IF T E E N (15) Y E A R S IN

### 12

TH E 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, AFF I RM ED. UPON RELEAS E, TH E APPEL LANT I S PLACED UNDER FI FTE EN (15) Y E A R S O F P O S T -R E L E A S E S U P E R V ISIO N , W IT H C O N D IT IO N S . S A ID S ENTENCE S H AL L RU N CO NSE CUTI VE TO A NY A ND A LL S ENTENCES P R E V I O U SL Y I M P O SE D . A P P E L L A N T SH A L L B E G I V E N C R E D I T F O R 322 DA YS T I M E S E RV E D. AS T O J UA N G ON Z AL E S - T OR RE S : CO NV I CT I ON OF P OS S ES S I ON OF A CONT ROLL ED S UB S TA NCE , TO- W I T: M ARI J UANA, F IV E (5) K IL O G R A M S O R M O R E A N D S E N T E N C E O F F IF T E E N ( 15 ) Y E A R S IN TH E C U STO D Y O F TH E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AFF I RM ED. UPON R ELEAS E, THE APPEL LANT I S P LACED UND ER FI FTE EN (15) Y E A R S O F P O S T - R E L E A S E S U P E R V IS IO N , W IT H C O N D IT IO N S . S A ID SENTENCE SHALL RUN CO NSE CUTI VE TO A NY A ND A LL S ENTENCES P R E V I O U SL Y I M P O SE D . A P P E L L A N T SH A L L B E G I V E N C R E D I T F O R 348 DAYS TI M E S ER VE D. SM I TH , C. J. , W AL LER AN D D I AZ, P. J J . , EA SLEY, CA RL SON , RA ND O LPH AND LAM AR, J J . , CO NC UR . G RAV ES , J . , DI S S ENTS W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.