647 S.E.2d 869
Meth destroys the mind and body and harms the unborn child. It promotes the
spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B and C. Meth endangers law enforcement officers and
burdens governments with the staggering costs of decontaminating and cleaning up meth
labs. Chronic meth users often demonstrate highly violent behavior, increased nervousness,
irritability, paranoia, severe depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and/or paranoia, self-
absorption, auditory and visual hallucinations, mood disturbances, delusions, and homicidal
or suicidal thoughts. These dangers are all the more alarming when one realizes that we are
currently experiencing a meth epidemic parallel to that of crack cocaine usage in the inner
cities decades ago.
In order to fully comprehend the majority's error in this case, it is necessary to
review a few of the underlying key facts. The drug paraphernalia was discovered pursuant
to a legitimate traffic stop as the appellant was speeding in a vehicle traveling from the
direction of Parkersburg, West Virginia. Then, while approaching the driver's side of the
vehicle, Trooper Cox noticed a yellow bag with six boxes of cold medicine containing
pseudoephedrine, which is the main ingredient for making methamphetamine. Inside the bag
was a receipt dated that same day for three of the boxes of cold medicine purchased from the
Dollar General Store in Parkersburg, West Virginia.
When Trooper Cox asked the appellant for his driver's license and other
vehicle information, Ms. Cummings, the appellant's wife, spoke up and said that the car was
not theirs and that she did not know where the vehicle information was located. Ms.
Cummings, who was sitting in the middle of the back seat at the time, leaned across the seat
and appeared to begin searching the glove compartment. Trooper Cox was unable to see Ms.
Cummings' hands nor could he see the hands of Ms. Pritt, who was seated in the front seat
on the passenger side of the vehicle. Trooper Cox explained to jurors that the hands of
individuals in a vehicle are the number one thing to keep an eye on during a traffic stop and
that the glove box is commonly used for concealing weapons. With that in mind, Trooper
Cox asked Ms. Cummings and Ms. Pritt to step out of the vehicle so that he could search
them for possible weapons.
Trooper Cox then asked the appellant to step out of the vehicle and began to
pat him down in search of weapons. Thereafter, he noticed that the appellant's pants were
bulging and asked him to empty his pockets onto the hood of the car. One of the items
removed from his pockets was a knife. Attached to the knife was a container which
contained three pills and two bags containing methamphetamine. Trooper Cox then placed
the appellant in the police cruiser. As he was doing this, he noticed Ms. Cummings reaching
across the hood of the vehicle in an attempt to hide the methamphetamine. After seeing all
of the items and having safety concerns for himself, and with the full permission of the
appellant and Ms. Cummings, Trooper Cox searched the vehicle and found 300 factory
sealed books of matches and 20 syringes. (The foregoing facts illustrate just how silly the
result in this case really is. How many people carry around 300 books of matches and 20
syringes in their car?).
Let us be clear about what happened here. Trooper Cox located mass
quantities of items used to make methamphetamine including pseudoephedrine, the main
ingredient in making the illegal drug; matches, another important ingredient used for its red
phosphorus; and syringes used to shoot methamphetamine into the body. This, of course,
was after Trooper Cox had already found methamphetamine on the appellant's possession,
attached to a key ring and knife in his pocket.
(See footnote 1)
There was no evidence presented that the individuals needed large amounts of
cold medicine, matches, and needles for health or any other reason. Conversely, there was
plenty of evidence showing that the appellant had constructive possession of the items which
were all at arm's length, in plain view, stacked neatly in the floorboard behind the appellant's
seat, and directly beside his wife, Ms. Cummings.
This case is about common sense. It is important to remember that the
appellant was driving back from the direction of Parkersburg where at least some of the items
were purchased that very day. The jurors heard all of the testimony below and convicted the
appellant of the underlying crimes. Now, the majority of this Court has decided to set aside
that verdict and replace it with their own judgment. Certainly an impartial trier of fact could
reasonably find the appellant guilty of the underlying crimes.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent.