pretrial suppression hearing in Alabama

2003See, e.g., Henry v. State , 468 So.2d 896 , 899 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984); United States v. Smith , 527 F.2d 692 , 694 (10th Cir. 1975) (`In passing on the correctness of the trial court's denial of [the defendant's] motion to suppress, we are not limited to a consideration of just the evidence introduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress.

1998See, e.g., Henry v. State , 468 So.2d 896 , 899 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984); United States v. Smith , 527 F.2d 692 , 694 (10th Cir. 1975) ("In passing on the correctness of the trial court's denial of [the defendant's] motion to suppress, we are not limited to a consideration of just the evidence introduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress.

2005In Maddox v. State, 620 So.2d 132 (Ala. Crim.App.1993), this Court addressed whether an undercover police officer could testify as to statements the defendant made in a conversation that the deputy overheard through a wire placed in the officer's truck.

2001The United States Supreme Court noted that "[w]hile trial notes might well provide an adequate substitute for a transcript, the failure to make such notes does not bar an indigent prisoner from claiming the right to a free transcript. . . ." The availability of adequate alternatives was held to have been sufficient to satisfy an appellant's claims of need for a transcript of a pretrial suppression hearing under Britt v. North Carolina , supra, where the same judge and defense counsel had appeared at the pretrial hearing three months before trial.

2001Nickerson v. State , 523 So.2d 504 , 506 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987).

1998Cf. Bush v. State , 523 So.2d at 557 ; Kinder v. State , 515 So.2d at 69 . 8 See discussion, supra , note 7. 9 At the pretrial suppression hearing, Sheriff Turner testified that Price was not threatened or pressured, and was not offered any reward or inducement, to provide his statement. [EDITORS' NOTE: PAGES 1075-1094 CONTAIN DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS] *Page 1

1998Cf. Bush v. State , 523 So.2d at 557 ; Kinder v. State , 515 So.2d at 69 . 8 See discussion, supra , note 7. 9 At the pretrial suppression hearing, Sheriff Turner testified that Price was not threatened or pressured, and was not offered any reward or inducement, to provide his statement. [EDITORS' NOTE: PAGES 1075-1094 CONTAIN DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS] *Page 1

1990In Ex parte Marek , 556 So.2d 375 , 382 (Ala. 1989), the Alabama Supreme Court abolished the tacit admission rule in pre-arrest situations "to the extent that the rule allows the introduction of evidence of an accused's silence when confronted with an accusation." The Court noted that the use of tacit admissions occurring after an individual has been given the Miranda warnings had been abolished in Ex parte Harris , 387 So.2d 868 (Ala. 1980).

1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the

1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the

1990Admittedly, both cases stress strict compliance with Rule 15.4(b), A.R.Cr.P.Temp.; however, we believe that the facts and circumstances underlying the present controversy are readily distinguishable from the facts and circumstances found in Ex parte Jones and Blackmon v. State and, thus, do not control this case. *Page 931 In Ex parte Stout , 547 So.2d 901 (Ala. 1989), this Court answered, in the affirmative, the question whether a defendant has the constitutional right to be present at a pretrial suppression hearing at which sworn testimony of a prosecution witness is taken.

1990In Ex parte Marek , 556 So.2d 375 , 382 (Ala. 1989), the Alabama Supreme Court abolished the tacit admission rule in pre-arrest situations "to the extent that the rule allows the introduction of evidence of an accused's silence when confronted with an accusation." The Court noted that the use of tacit admissions occurring after an individual has been given the Miranda warnings had been abolished in Ex parte Harris , 387 So.2d 868 (Ala. 1980).

1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the

1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the

1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the

1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the

1990In so holding, this Court distinguished two cases relied upon by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Stout v. State , 547 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), as follows: "The Court of Criminal Appeals, 547 So.2d 894 , relying on Maund v. State , 361 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), and Johnson v. State , 335 So.2d 663 , 678 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 335 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1026 , 97 S.Ct. 649 , 50 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), held that the trial court did not err in conducting the suppression hearing in Stout's absence and that Stout did not have a right to be present at the

1980The Court's opinion in Alderman , [ 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 ] counseled against such an extension of the exclusionary rule: "`The deterrent values of preventing the incrimination of those whose rights the police have violated have been considered sufficient to justify the suppression of probative evidence even though the case against the defendant is weakened or destroyed.

1980The Court's opinion in Alderman , [ 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 ] counseled against such an extension of the exclusionary rule: "`The deterrent values of preventing the incrimination of those whose rights the police have violated have been considered sufficient to justify the suppression of probative evidence even though the case against the defendant is weakened or destroyed.