record of the suppression hearing in Alabama

2010The State appealed. 1 In State v. Landrum, 18 So.3d 424 (Ala.Crim.App.2009), this Court explained: “ ‘This Court reviews de novo a circuit court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence when the facts are not in dispute.

2010Although the circuit court did not issue written findings of fact, it is clear from the record of the suppression hearing that the circuit court suppressed the drug evidence on the grounds that Officer Upshaw did not testify that he believed the object in Perry’s pocket to be a weapon and thus, did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to seize the object pursuant to a Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), “patdown” search.

2010Although the circuit court did not issue written findings of fact, it is clear from the record of the suppression hearing that the circuit court suppressed the drug evidence on the grounds that Officer Upshaw did not testify that he believed the object in Perry’s pocket to be a weapon and thus, did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to seize the object pursuant to a Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), “patdown” search.

2000At one point the trial court stated: "Well, you know, one thing that would have been nice would have been to get a written motion so we would know exactly what it is you're objecting to." (R. 180.) It does appear that counsel objected on the basis that the statements were involuntary, that police failed to satisfy the Miranda requirements, that the time between the statements was too long and that Miranda warnings should have been given again, and that Smith had been coerced into making a statement. [5] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [6] Though this i

2000At one point the trial court stated: "Well, you know, one thing that would have been nice would have been to get a written motion so we would know exactly what it is you're objecting to." (R. 180.) It does appear that counsel objected on the basis that the statements were involuntary, that police failed to satisfy the Miranda requirements, that the time between the statements was too long and that Miranda warnings should have been given again, and that Smith had been coerced into making a statement. [5] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [6] Though this i

2000"In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, this Court may consider the evidence adduced both at the suppression hearing and at the trial." Henry v. State, 468 So.2d 896, 899 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), cert. denied, 468 So.2d 902 (Ala.1985). [7] Even if were to conclude that Smith should have been advised of his Miranda rights before the first statement, which we do not, we would still hold that the second statement was accompanied by the appropriate Miranda warnings and would not be inadmissible on that basis.

1994Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 781 F.2d 185 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 909 , 107 S.Ct. 307 , 93 L.Ed.2d 281 (1986); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Magwood v. State; Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” ■[8] Pursuant to a totality of the circumstances evaluation, a thorough examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals the following uncontradieted facts: 1) Chief Investigator for the district attorney’s office, Port

1994Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 781 F.2d 185 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 909 , 107 S.Ct. 307 , 93 L.Ed.2d 281 (1986); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Magwood v. State; Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” ■[8] Pursuant to a totality of the circumstances evaluation, a thorough examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals the following uncontradieted facts: 1) Chief Investigator for the district attorney’s office, Port

1994Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 781 F.2d 185 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 909 , 107 S.Ct. 307 , 93 L.Ed.2d 281 (1986); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Magwood v. State; Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” ■[8] Pursuant to a totality of the circumstances evaluation, a thorough examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals the following uncontradieted facts: 1) Chief Investigator for the district attorney’s office, Port

1994Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 781 F.2d 185 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 909 , 107 S.Ct. 307 , 93 L.Ed.2d 281 (1986); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Magwood v. State; Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” ■[8] Pursuant to a totality of the circumstances evaluation, a thorough examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals the following uncontradieted facts: 1) Chief Investigator for the district attorney’s office, Port

1994Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 781 F.2d 185 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 909 , 107 S.Ct. 307 , 93 L.Ed.2d 281 (1986); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Magwood v. State; Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” ■[8] Pursuant to a totality of the circumstances evaluation, a thorough examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals the following uncontradieted facts: 1) Chief Investigator for the district attorney’s office, Port

1994Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 781 F.2d 185 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 909 , 107 S.Ct. 307 , 93 L.Ed.2d 281 (1986); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Magwood v. State; Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” ■[8] Pursuant to a totality of the circumstances evaluation, a thorough examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals the following uncontradieted facts: 1) Chief Investigator for the district attorney’s office, Port

1994Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 781 F.2d 185 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 909 , 107 S.Ct. 307 , 93 L.Ed.2d 281 (1986); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Magwood v. State; Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” ■[8] Pursuant to a totality of the circumstances evaluation, a thorough examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals the following uncontradieted facts: 1) Chief Investigator for the district attorney’s office, Port

1994Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 781 F.2d 185 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 909 , 107 S.Ct. 307 , 93 L.Ed.2d 281 (1986); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Magwood v. State; Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” ■[8] Pursuant to a totality of the circumstances evaluation, a thorough examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals the following uncontradieted facts: 1) Chief Investigator for the district attorney’s office, Port

1994Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 781 F.2d 185 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 909 , 107 S.Ct. 307 , 93 L.Ed.2d 281 (1986); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Magwood v. State; Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” ■[8] Pursuant to a totality of the circumstances evaluation, a thorough examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals the following uncontradieted facts: 1) Chief Investigator for the district attorney’s office, Port

1994Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 781 F.2d 185 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 909 , 107 S.Ct. 307 , 93 L.Ed.2d 281 (1986); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Magwood v. State; Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” ■[8] Pursuant to a totality of the circumstances evaluation, a thorough examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals the following uncontradieted facts: 1) Chief Investigator for the district attorney’s office, Port

1978See U. S. v. Strickler, 9 Cir., 490 F.2d 378 ; U. S. v. Lampkin, 3 Cir., 464 F.2d 1093 . *691 In the present case, the record of the suppression hearing indicates that although the questioning took place in the sheriff's office it in no way indicated that the respondent's freedom to depart was restricted in any way.