B.J.C. v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. D.H. v. State

    177 So. 3d 1187 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)

    Him walking away is not corroboration. It's a constitutional right of his to ignore them if they don't have reasonable suspicion that—to stop him or to frisk him. This is an uncorroborated anonymous tip. It falls right under Florida v. J.L., B.J.C. v. State, 992 So.2d 90 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), C.D.M. v. State [, 63 So.3d 1285 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) ]. It's a pretty clean cut and dried case, Your Honor.“[The Court]: Thank you.”

  2. Smith v. State

    19 So. 3d 912 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)   Cited 6 times

    " Washington v. State, 922 So.2d 145, 157-58 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005). "In B.J.C. v. State, 992 So.2d 90 (Ala. Crim.App. 2008), this court cited Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), in which the United States Supreme Court reiterated the standard to be applied in a 'stop and frisk' situation. "'"Our 'stop and frisk' decisions begin with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

  3. W.D.H. v. State

    16 So. 3d 121 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)   Cited 10 times
    In W.D.H. v. State, 16 So.3d 121 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), the evidence showed that police had been receiving complaints “of a person shooting and selling drugs in a certain block in Tulane Court.” 16 So.3d at 123.

    In B.J.C. v. State, 992 So.2d 90, 91 (Ala. Crim.App. 2008), this court cited Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254, (2000), in which the United States Supreme Court reiterated the standard to be applied in a "stop and frisk" situation. "'Our "stop and frisk" decisions begin with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

  4. State v. Jemison

    66 So. 3d 832 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that United States Supreme Court's decision in Gant, setting out circumstances under which police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest, applied retroactively to the defendant's case, which was pending on direct appeal, because the defendant's conviction was not yet final

    Jemison attacks this factor within his first of his aforementioned five instances of infringement of Jemison's Fourth Amendment rights. Here, Jemison relies on B.J.C. v. State, 992 So.2d 90 (Ala.Crim. App. 2008), in arguing that whatever tip the police received regarding the drug activity at the house Officer Clackley was watching lacked the "indicia of reliability critical to allow the officer to infringe on the Fourth Amendment rights of Jemison." (Jemison's brief, at 12.)

  5. C.D.M. v. State

    63 So. 3d 1285 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Specifically, he contends that the juvenile court should have suppressed the pistol because the officers id. not have reasonable suspicion to believe that he was armed and dangerous when they conducted the pat-down search. Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000), and this court's decision in B.J.C. v. State, 992 So.2d 90 (Ala. Crim.App. 2008), he asserts that the anonymous call in this case did not justify the patdown search because it did not include any predictive information; because the officers could have possibly corroborated the information that a gun had been fired inside the abandoned house, but did not; and because the officers corroborated only his "`readily observable location and appearance.'" (C.D.M.'s brief at p. 12.)

  6. State v. Jemison

    No. CR-09-0399 (Ala. Crim. App. Jul. 30, 2010)

    Jemison attacks this factor within his first of his aforementioned five instances of infringement of Jemison's Fourth Amendment rights. Here, Jemison relies on B.J.C. v. State, 992 So. 2d 90 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008), in arguing that whatever tip the police received regarding the drug activity at the house Officer Clackley was watching lacked the "indicia of reliability critical to allow the officer to infringe on the Fourth Amendment rights of Jemison." (Jemison's brief, at 12.)

  7. State v. Pollard

    160 So. 3d 826 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 4 times
    In Pollard, this Court used the Jenkins approach to avoid unnecessarily deciding a question of first impression: Whether an automatically generated e-mail from a state-maintained database was analogous to an anonymous tip.

    I am saying I was unable to find one. “We do rest on our position with [Aaron ], and further state, in addition to that, the case of B.J.C. v. State, [992 So.2d 90 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) ], I believe this is a juvenile case dealing with a stop related to a handgun or a firearm. But the—the important holding in that case and this has been espoused in other cases, 11th Circuit cases, U.S. Supreme Court cases:

  8. State v. Pollard

    CR-10-1560 (Ala. Crim. App. Dec. 14, 2012)

    I am not saying there is not one out there. I am saying I was unable to find one."We do rest on our position with [Aaron], and further state, in addition to that, the case of B.J.C. v. State, [992 So. 2d 90 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)], I believe this is a juvenile case dealing with a stop related to a handgun or a firearm. But the--the important holding in that case and this has