Editorial Roundup: Mississippi

Greenwood Commonwealth. May 10, 2022.

Editorial: Cameras Would Help Law Officers

A Mississippi Court of Appeals ruling in a misdemeanor drug case is a good example of how adding body cameras to standard law enforcement equipment could help prosecutors, judges and juries discern the facts.

The case originated in Franklin County, where early one evening in November 2018, Amos D. Briggs arrived at a driver’s license safety checkpoint. A state trooper said he smelled a strong marijuana odor when Briggs rolled down the driver’s window, and he said Briggs had watery and bloodshot eyes.

The trooper had the driver pull off the road and get out of the car, and he said Briggs swayed from side to side as he followed the trooper’s instructions and walked to the back of the vehicle. A search uncovered a jar of marijuana under the driver’s seat, and Briggs also had a bag of marijuana in his pants pocket. The trooper said Briggs admitted that he had smoked marijuana an hour before the stop.

Briggs was charged with two misdemeanor first offenses: driving under the influence and possession of marijuana. Convicted of both charges in justice court, he then appealed to Franklin County Circuit Court, where in September 2020 he received a bench trial, meaning a judge decided the case without a jury.

In circuit court, the trooper repeated his earlier testimony. He also said he did not conduct a field sobriety test of Briggs during the traffic stop. There was no blood or urine test to see if Briggs met the legal definition of driving under the influence.

There was no test on the substances found in the car and in the driver’s pocket to determine whether it was marijuana. And finally, since cars were slowing down as they approached the traffic stop, the trooper said he did not see Briggs driving the vehicle for very long.

In defense testimony, Briggs’ girlfriend, who was in the car at the checkpoint, denied that the vehicle smelled of marijuana. She also said when Briggs told the trooper he had been smoking, he meant a tobacco cigarette. She said she had been with him for several hours before the stop and did not see him use anything that would impair his ability to drive.

Briggs’ brother testified that all the marijuana was his. He said he left the jar under the front seat when he drove the car before Briggs. He also said that Briggs had borrowed a pair of pants from him that day, and added that he had never seen his brother smoke marijuana.

In his own testimony, Briggs said had he known the marijuana was in the car, he had plenty of time while approaching the checkpoint to toss it out of the vehicle without anyone noticing.

The circuit judge split the difference, finding Briggs guilty of driving under the influence but not guilty of marijuana possession. His two-day jail sentence was suspended. He was fined $1,000 and his commercial driver’s license was suspended for a year.

Briggs then took his case to the Court of Appeals, which determines whether the law was applied properly at trial. He had little chance of winning, as the court’s ruling quoted a prior case that said a reversal occurs “only where the findings of the trial judge are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.”

All nine judges affirmed the circuit court verdict. But the most interesting element of the case is how little evidence the prosecution had to work with. There was no field sobriety test, no blood or urine test — not even confirmation that the suspicious material was in fact marijuana. This may be why the judge convicted Briggs of only one of the two charges.

There is no reason to doubt the word of a veteran state trooper. But given the criticisms that American law enforcement has endured during the last few years, the best thing Mississippi could do is provide more tools for officers to defend their on-the-spot assessments.

Body cameras are one such device. Even in low evening light, a good camera would have shown whether Briggs was wobbly as he walked to the back of his car. It also would have recorded his demeanor and any conversations that he and the trooper had. This would have been useful information in court.

END