Facts
Between January 4, 2023, and January 11, 2023, three teenage girls separately reported to the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office that a man driving a white pickup truck in the St. Martin community exposed himself to them. First was fourteen-year-old A.V., who told officers that as she was walking home from being dropped off by the school bus, a white male in a white truck pulled up beside her and asked her for directions to her high school. When she looked over, he had his penis exposed and he was fondling it while talking to her. He then laughed and drove away.
A few days later, thirteen-year-old L.V. told officers that a white male in a white truck pulled up next to her as she was walking home from the store in the same community. The man asked her about her school, and when she looked over at him in the truck, he was masturbating. L.V. described him as wearing a blue shirt and having brown, shaggy hair and a “grown out mullet.” L.V.’s father brought law enforcement some still shots of a white truck shown in surveillance video footage of the Beaujolais Apartments across the street from where the incident with L.V. occurred. The photos, time-stamped close to the time of L.V.’s encounter, showed a white Dodge truck with four doors with black handles. Officer Jason Pharez was assigned the cases, and he visited the apartment complex himself to obtain a copy of the surveillance footage as well, which he found actually captured the incident with L.V. Pharez drove around the area of these two incidents looking for other surveillance cameras, but he found none.
A few days later, fifteen-year-old M.B. reported that as she was walking home, a white male with brown hair and a beard driving a white pickup stopped and asked her how far he was from her school. When she looked down, she saw his “genitalia” out, and he was fondling himself. M.B. described the male as having dark hair, a “scruffy” appearance, and was in his early thirties. All three girls said the truck was white; L.V. and M.B. told officers it was a four-door truck. M.B. added that it had black door handles.
The day after M.B.’s report, at least ten law enforcement officers began a “saturation detail” at the end of the school day in the area where these three incidents occurred. Pharez provided officers with the still shot and description of the white pickup shown in the surveillance video to assist in their search. Specifically, the truck had no lettering or markings on the tailgate, factory aluminum wheels, a chrome front bumper with black top trim, a chrome grill, a front license plate holder, and black door handles. The passenger-side sun visor was down, and something was hanging from the rearview mirror.
One of the officers on the detail, Austin Barnett, identified a truck that matched the still photo and description. He contacted Pharez, who was nearby, and reported that he believed he found the suspect truck and was initiating a traffic stop. Pharez arrived just as Barnett was pulling Christopher Burdine over at a Citgo station. Pharez noted that the sun visor on the passenger side of Burdine’s truck was down, there was an air freshener hanging in the rearview mirror, and the grill was chrome with black trim. The vehicle had a front license plate holder and black door handles on the four doors. Pharez also noted that Burdine matched the general description given by the victims.
Burdine was alone, and Barnett asked him to exit the truck. When Pharez and Barnett ran a license check, they learned that there were two warrants for Burdine’s arrest for failing to appear at court for traffic violations. The officers arrested Burdine pursuant to those arrest warrants. Barnett told Pharez that when he had Burdine exit the vehicle, he noticed that Burdine had a visible erection. Looking through the open truck door, Pharez saw an open jar of “gooey” orange gel in the cup holder, a white t-shirt with orange stains, and Burdine’s cell phone lying on the top of the console. After Burdine’s arrest, the truck was taken by a wrecker and sealed in preparation for a search warrant.
On cross-examination, Pharez admitted that Burdine was not stopped for a traffic violation but, rather, because officers had a reasonable suspicion that this was the vehicle that had been involved in crimes of indecent exposure. The time of day was approximately the same as the times of the incidents, and the area was the same. As an investigator with experience in these types of crimes, Pharez said it was reasonable for him to think that some other type of child sexual abuse material might be on the phone, giving him reason to obtain the search warrant. Barnett testified to identifying the pickup truck, and, as he drove past the truck, he determined that the truck’s driver matched the description given by the girls. He followed the truck and then activated his blue lights to conduct the traffic stop. Pharez arrived as Burdine was pulling over. Barnett said he could see Burdine moving around in the car. After Burdine exited the vehicle, because Burdine kept reaching back in, Barnett frisked him for weapons. He noticed that Burdine had an erection. Officer Pharez then took over the stop.
(Evidence was obtained from the search warrants which led to his conviction).
Burdine appeals his conviction by a Jackson County Circuit Court jury of two felony counts of voyeurism for filming women in restrooms without permission (Counts 1 and 2) for which the court sentenced him as a habitual offender to two terms of life imprisonment without parole eligibility. The jury also found Burdine guilty of three misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure (Counts 3-5) for which he was sentenced to serve six months in custody for each conviction. He argued that the stop was illegal. MCOA affirmed.
Analysis
The State agrees that Burdine was not stopped for any traffic violation observed by Officer Barnett. However, Barnett, like all officers involved in the saturation detail, had been briefed on the reports of the girls who were the victims of Burdine’s indecent exposure. One had described the predator as having a scruffy beard and being in his twenties or thirties. Barnett and other officers were aware of the location of these incidents in an area of the St. Martin’s community near the school. Officers also knew dates and times of these incidents, all occurring in early January after school between 3 and 4:30 p.m. Officer Pharez had obtained surveillance video from the Beaujolais Apartments that actually recorded one of the incidents and showed a white Dodge pickup truck stopping by one of the victims. Pharez made still shots of the vehicle that he passed out to the officers. The vehicle was described as having certain characteristics with something dangling from the rearview mirror and a chrome grill with black trim.
Armed with this information, Barnett patrolled the area in question during the times the perpetrator might be trying to encounter other young girls. He passed an oncoming vehicle that closely resembled the truck in the photos that was driven by a white male generally matching the description given by the girls. Based on this information, Barnett felt he had reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop, and the trial court agreed.
We have held that an officer had reasonable suspicion in Wrenn. There, dispatch notified officers that a man had fired a gun and driven away “from Heather Cove in a large, loud, white truck, possibly a Ford 150 or a Chevy.” Officer Magill was nearby, and as he approached the area, two people were pointing and directing him to go north. Magill proceeded north and spotted the truck that he believed fit the dispatcher’s description and initiated a stop. On appeal, we held that Magill “had reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, to believe that Wrenn was the suspect fleeing the recent shooting a short distance away on Heather Cove.”
Burdine argues that Wrenn is distinguishable because in the case at hand, there was no “close-in-time” report of a vehicle leaving the scene of a crime. However, Barnett was patrolling the area where the previous crimes had occurred just days before, at a time of day that those crimes happened, and he had a photograph of the vehicle taken at the time of one of the incidents. The totality of the circumstances here supports the court’s finding of reasonable suspicion.
Likewise, the case at hand differed from Cook, where the MSC held that an uncorroborated anonymous tip was insufficient to conduct an investigatory stop. In that case, Officer Ware received a “BOLO” (“be on the lookout”) for a gray Chevrolet Avalanche driving erratically, and the driver flashing some sort of badge. Ware saw a vehicle matching that description and followed it. He noticed no erratic driving or the driver flashing any badge but, nonetheless, initiated a stop. Ware arrested the driver, Cook, for DUI. Although Cook contested the stop, he was convicted, and the conviction was affirmed by this Court. On a petition for writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed, noting: Reasonable suspicion generally stems from one of two sources: an officer’s personal observation, or an informant’s tip. An informant’s tip may provide reasonable suspicion if accompanied by some indication of reliability; for example, reliability may be shown from the officer’s independent investigation of the informant’s information. The Court reviewed other cases where officers had received anonymous tips but had no information to verify them, including Eaddy (finding that an unverified anonymous tip that an individual with three arrest warrants was driving a red Cadillac was insufficient to support a stop).
In the case at hand, however, Officer Barnett was acting on reports of crimes filed by the victims, not an anonymous tip. He had three different sources that described the vehicle and at least one that described the perpetrator. Thus, we find that Barnett had reasonable suspicion to initiate the investigative stop in this case and that the items retrieved during that stop and subsequent search pursuant to a search warrant of the vehicle were lawfully seized, including Burdine’s cell phone.