Motion to suppress; Search & seizure; Automobile exception; Reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop; People v Soulliere; Tip from an unknown individual; People v Pagano; Probable cause

The court concluded that the trial court did not clearly err in denying defendant-Maddox’s motion to suppress on a constitutional basis. He was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance (less than 50 grams), second or subsequent offense, possession of a controlled substance, and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (less than 50 grams), second or subsequent offense. Maddox argued “that the evidence recovered from his vehicle should have been suppressed because it was obtained pursuant to an unconstitutional search.” The first pertinent inquiry was “whether the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Maddox.” The officers followed him “to the gas station, where they saw him engage in what they believed to be a hand-to-hand exchange, which based on their training and experience, led the police to believe they observed a drug transaction; thus, providing ample evidence to support a stop based on reasonable suspicion. This is considerably more evidence and corroboration than existed in Soulliere[.]” Maddox also argued “that the police did not properly corroborate the information in the tip.” The court found that the “police corroborated information from a tip received from a known individual, that described the suspect’s physical appearance, location, vehicle, and in the midst of conducting an undercover observation of the person they saw him participate in a suspected drug transaction, establishing reasonable suspicion and distinguishing this case from both Soulliere and Pagano.” The second relevant inquiry was “whether the totality of the circumstances established probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of Maddox’s vehicle. Not only did the officers witness what they believed to be a hand-to-hand transaction between Maddox and [P], but [P] also told the officer’s when stopped, that he had just purchased narcotics from Maddox providing ample probable cause.” The court found that “the police executed a valid stop via reasonable suspicion, and a valid search under the automobile exception, rendering suppression of the contested evidence unnecessary.” Affirmed.