Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneydiscoveryappealtrialsearch and seizureseizureadmissibility
defendantappealtrialaffidavitsearch and seizureseizure

Related Cases

Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal.4th 807, 171 P.3d 1092, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 758, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 14,234, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,307
View Case »
McCullough v. Waterside Associates, 102 Conn.App. 23, 925 A.2d 352
View Case »
Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490, 529 A.2d 171
View Case »
Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1991 WL 78200, 20 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1479
View Case »
Townsend v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1778, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2419
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Carney v. State, 525 So.2d 776

Facts

On January 25, 1984, Investigator Carroll Bryant obtained a search warrant for Charles Carney's residence based on information from a confidential informant regarding stolen property. During the search, police found the stolen television and radio, as well as marijuana. Carney was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and receiving stolen property. His attorney claimed a misunderstanding regarding the order of trials for the two charges, which led to Carney's conviction for marijuana possession.

On January 25, 1984, Carroll Bryant, an investigator with the Columbia Police Department, was investigating a burglary which had occurred the day before. Bryant had received information from a confidential informant that a television and a radio which had been taken in the burglary were seen by the informant at Charles Carney's residence. Bryant appeared before Justice Court Judge Lloyd Day and furnished him with a search warrant as well as an affidavit which supported the search warrant request. A search warrant was issued pursuant to this request.

Issue

Did the trial court err in allowing the State to proceed with the marijuana possession case before the receiving stolen property case, and was the search warrant for Carney's residence valid?

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ALLOWING THE STATE TO PROCEED IN CASE NUMBER 3928–2, POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA WITH INTENT TO DELIVER OR SELL OVER ONE OUNCE BUT LESS THAN ONE KILOGRAM, BEFORE CASE NUMBER 3900–2, RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY, IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER SECTION 26 OF THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION, AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AS MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT?

Rule

Probable cause for a search warrant must be established based on reliable information, and evidence obtained from an unlawful search is inadmissible. The court applies a totality of the circumstances test to determine the validity of a search warrant.

To test the sufficiency of the search warrant it is necessary to apply the totality of the circumstances test set out in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), and adopted by this Court in Lee v. State, 435 So.2d 674 (Miss.1983).

Analysis

The court found that while the search warrant was valid for the stolen items, it was not valid for the marijuana since the officers were not searching for it at the time of its discovery. The marijuana was discovered after the officers had already located the items they had probable cause to search for, thus exceeding the scope of the warrant. The court emphasized that the legality of the search is crucial for the admissibility of evidence found in plain view.

The marijuana which the officers seized was not the subject of the search warrant. However, the warrant is important in that in order to fall within the plain view doctrine, the evidence must have been discovered pursuant to a lawful search. In Isaacks v. State, 350 So.2d 1340 (Miss.1977), this Court addressed a plain view seizure of contraband and stated: It is also apparent from the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that the 'plain view' doctrine does not eliminate the requirement that seizure of contraband discovered while in 'plain view' must comply with the Fourth Amendment requirements and in the absence of 'exigent circumstances' be based on a valid warrant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed Carney's conviction, ruling that the marijuana evidence was inadmissible due to the lack of probable cause for its search and seizure.

The Supreme Court reversed Carney's conviction, ruling that the marijuana evidence was inadmissible due to the lack of probable cause for its search and seizure.

Who won?

Charles Everett Carney prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the evidence against him was obtained through an unlawful search.

Charles Everett Carney prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the evidence against him was obtained through an unlawful search.

You must be