State v. Compton

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

State v. Compton

711 So. 2d 1114, 1997 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 232, 1997 WL 340668

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJune 20, 1997

DocketCR-96-0073

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 711 So. 2d 1114 (State v. Compton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Compton, 711 So. 2d 1114, 1997 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 232, 1997 WL 340668 (Ala. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

MeMILLAN, Judge.

The State appeals from the trial court’s order granting Freda Marie Compton’s motion to suppress what she alleges was illegally seized evidence.

On this appeal, the State asserts that Compton had no standing to raise the issue of the validity of a warrantless search of the vehicle that she was driving. The State did not raise the issue of standing at the suppression hearing; that issue, therefore, has been waived. While it is true that Compton did not demonstrate that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle from which the evidence was seized pursuant to the warrantless search, the State did not question her standing to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge below; it is therefore precluded from questioning standing on appeal. See Hopkins v. State, 661 So.2d 774 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Cook v. State, 574 So.2d 905 (Ala.Cr.App.1990).

The order of the trial court granting the motion to suppress was proper.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur, except BROWN, J., who concurs in result only, without opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MeMILLAN, Judge.

The State appeals from the trial court’s order granting Freda Marie Compton’s motion to suppress what she alleges was illegally seized evidence.

On this appeal, the State asserts that Compton had no standing to raise the issue of the validity of a warrantless search of the vehicle that she was driving. The State did not raise the issue of standing at the suppression hearing; that issue, therefore, has been waived. While it is true that Compton did not demonstrate that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle from which the evidence was seized pursuant to the warrantless search, the State did not question her standing to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge below; it is therefore precluded from questioning standing on appeal. See Hopkins v. State, 661 So.2d 774 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Cook v. State, 574 So.2d 905 (Ala.Cr.App.1990).

The order of the trial court granting the motion to suppress was proper.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur, except BROWN, J., who concurs in result only, without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 So. 2d 1114, 1997 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 232, 1997 WL 340668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-compton-alacrimapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack