Ingram v. State (Unpublished Memo): Motion to suppress denied at trial, denial affirmed on appeal. A multi-step traffic stop eventually leads to discovery of cocaine in appellant’s shoe.
Troopers stop vehicle on I-20 in Smith County for speeding. Occupants “’extremely, visibly’ nervous.” They give slightly different accounts of whereabouts before stop.
One of them blurts out: “There ain’t any of that hanky-panky stuff going on around here.” Criminal record check reveals passenger had long rap sheet. Passenger fidgeting in vehicle, drops out of sight. Troopers frisk occupants for weapons. Passenger has large roll of bills in his pants. Troopers ask for, and get, permission to search vehicle. Notice spare tire is missing, consistent with that area being used in the past for smuggling. Also hear rattle in rear door of sedan – possibility of hidden compartment.
About 26 minutes have gone by. Troopers ask for, and receive, permission to call canine unit (will take 10-15 minutes more). Occupants standing next to patrol car at this point. They can’t keep still. Passenger’s left shoe isn’t on all the way. Troopers inquire about it. Passenger takes of right shoe. Troopers insists on seeing left shoe. Passenger throws left shoe to the driver and lunges at one of the Troopers.
Occupants versus Troopers in hand-to-hand combat. Outcome: Troopers, first round TKO.
Troopers pick up shoe and discover two bags of cocaine. Passenger appeals conviction on grounds that there wasn’t probable cause to search his shoe, and on grounds that the Troopers had unreasonably and unconstitutionally dragged out the stop. Trial court affirmed on both issues.
