State v. Pigford

922 So. 2d 517 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A computer weight monitoring system registered an eastbound Volvo 18-wheeler 3,000 pounds over the state weight limit of 80,000 pounds. D was the driver. D was directed to pull into the nearest weigh station where the truck was weighed on the stationary scales and again registered 3,000 pounds over the legal limit. D told Officers that he was traveling to New York; however, the bill of lading showed that he was hauling a load of grapes from California to Pittsburgh. Officers asked D to open the back of the trailer so they could see what he had as cargo. D refused to open the trailer, telling the Officers he was a member of the NAACP, and that he knew he had a right to refuse to allow the search. Peggy Adley, an agent with the Public Service Commission, arrived and told D that she had the right to inspect the trailer without his consent. D relented. The plain view search revealed the end of a large package sitting on top of the boxes of grapes, less than an arm's length from the back end of the load. The package was removed, and it was determined that the bundle contained marijuana. It had 52 pounds of marijuana possessing a street value of $52,000. Everything about the package was consistent with an intent to distribute. No fingerprints were found on the package, and the officers had otherwise determined that D's bill of lading for his cargo was in good order. D urged jurors to consider that he was not off route because Interstate 20 runs to California, and he promised to produce a map to prove the point. D urged jurors to consider that no evidence would establish that he had witnessed the loading of the trailer in California. D got Officers to admit that someone else could have loaded the contraband without D knowing it. D was convicted and appealed. The court of appeal reasoned that D's access to the cargo area did not alone indicate that he had knowledge of the contraband concealed in the trailer. It determined that P needed to present additional evidence demonstrating D's guilty knowledge 'to preclude the possibility that the contraband was put there by third persons during the loading of the cargo. The conviction was reversed. P appealed.