Opinion ID: 2332966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pause in the Proceedings)

Text: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, we're seeking to suppress the stop and anything that flowed from that. I believe evidence was seized from him when he was stopped by Officer Peton, I can't remember how theyPeton, and his K-9, and Officer Burgess. So anything that was seized from that stop. THE COURT: Okay. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The defendant's statement to Officer Cheeks, which was memorialized in writing allegedly by Mr. Southern and also as it appears by Officer Cheeks. There's also an oral statement that was allegedly given to Corporal Arscott at the hospital. We're moving to suppress that. And there was a search of the vehicle. Officerresponded to the car, and Officer Stuehmeier seized it, and they are alleging my client had custody of that vehicle. The State then presented testimony regarding petitioner's time in custody, petitioner's statements, and the seizure of a cash register drawer from the automobile petitioner allegedly drove to the stores. There was no evidence at the suppression hearing describing the initial detention of petitioner or the reasons, i.e., probable cause supporting that apprehension. After the State concluded its presentation of testimony on the omnibus motion, the following exchange between the court and counsel occurred: THE COURT: Any further evidence? [STATE'S ATTORNEY]: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Anything further? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I will not present any witnesses, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Are you going to argue, or you want to submit? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I would like to argue. THE COURT: Go ahead and argue. First of all, what are you going to argue about? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I'm going to re-argue with regard to the search and seizure and the stop, when they stopped the defendant, about the identification, and the statements of Detective Cheeks and THE COURT: Then go ahead and start. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. Your Honor, with regard to the stop, the defendant should really be the starting point for everything. We really have no evidence. What we have is Officer Burkhalter, who did not participate in the stop of Mr. Southern, who indicated the description that was given was a white male, and he really didn't have anything further than that. I believe it was five-eight to five-ten. Other than that, the next thing we know is we have Mr. Southern stopped and witnesses driving by. So I don't think the State has established probable causeI would therefore like you to suppress the identification based on that. Petitioner's counsel then argued about the statements and the search of the vehicle; however, during petitioner's argument that the identification should be suppressed because the stop was unconstitutional the trial court interrupted the discussion. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: ... With regard to the search of the vehicle, I don't believe the State satisfied under the rules who the owner is, or who searched it, or where it came from. And for that reason we would ask that but most importantly, we would ask that the I.D. be suppressed because the stop was. THE COURT: The Court finds that the defendant was identified by a witness as the person who perpetrated the robbery and was arrested as a result of that. He was taken into custody. That a vehicle was recovered in close proximity to the second location of the robbery. That the vehicle belonged to someone other than the defendant, and that someone gave permission to the police to search it by written consent. That the defendant was not detained unduly. That he was advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona. That he waived his constitutional rights pursuant to the same decision. That he gave a statement. That he answered questions and fully cooperated with the police, and this was not after an undue delay.