State of Iowa v. Jaheim Romaine Cyrus ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0828
Filed January 11, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JAHEIM ROMAINE CYRUS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brendan E. Greiner
(motion) and Odell G. McGhee II (trial), District Associate Judges.
Jaheim Romaine Cyrus appeals the denial of his motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Josh Irwin, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Heard by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
Jaheim Romaine Cyrus appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We
find the officer did not create a coercive environment constituting an illegal search
and affirm the district court’s ruling.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings.
At 9:20 the evening of Friday, October 16, 2020, Officer Shawn Morgan was
dispatched to check out a gold Chevrolet Impala that had been parking in different
spots in a Des Moines residential neighborhood, drawing concern from a resident.
The Impala was parked in a lawful manner when Officer Morgan arrived. As he
neared the Impala, Officer Morgan trained the vehicle’s spotlight on the vehicle,
searching for persons in the car, then training the spotlight on the driver’s side door
as he slowly pulled up to the Impala.1 Officer Morgan turned on the top bar rear
warning lights of his marked patrol vehicle as he parked his patrol vehicle in the
middle of the street, to the side and to the rear of the Impala. He did not turn on
the front-facing emergency lights.
As Officer Morgan’s vehicle pulled up to the rear side of the vehicle, the
driver, Cyrus, opened his door and looked back at the patrol car, making his hands
clearly visible. The officer quickly got out of the patrol car, and said “How are you
tonight?” Cyrus can be seen responding but cannot be heard on the dashcam
video.2 As Officer Morgan exited his car, Cyrus started to move, putting his foot
1 Officer Morgan was uncertain whether the rear lights flashed red and blue or
yellow. The flashing lights cannot be seen on the videos submitted into evidence.
2 Although Officer Morgan was wearing a bodycam that day, he did not get the
battery off the charger before speaking with Cyrus, leaving only the dashcam
videos as evidence.
3
on the ground and placing his hand on the door as if he was going to get out. He
then returned his foot back into the car as Officer Morgan walked around the front
of the patrol car. Officer Morgan agreed he spoke to Cyrus as he rounded the front
of his car toward the rear of Cyrus’s vehicle, but it is unclear from the video what
was said. The first part of the encounter cannot be heard on the video available.
Cyrus testified he asked the officer if he could get out of the car and the officer
said, “No, just stay in the car.”
The officer walked to the back of Cyrus’s vehicle to call in the license plate
number. When Officer Morgan approached the driver’s open door to speak with
Cyrus, he smelled burnt marijuana. Officer Morgan placed his left arm on top of
the car door and stood at the open door to speak to Cyrus. The officer used his
flashlight to illuminate the inside of the vehicle again. Cyrus handed something to
the officer, and we are able to see Officer Morgan speaking to him. Cyrus got out
and turned to face the vehicle and put his hands behind his back. Officer Morgan
placed Cyrus in handcuffs and patted him down. A bullet was found in Cyrus’s
pocket. After placing Cyrus into the patrol car, the officer entered the vehicle and
searched the interior. He found a firearm in the center console of the vehicle.
Cyrus was arrested and charged with carrying weapons and fourth-degree theft.
Cyrus filed a motion to suppress, asserting he was illegally seized when the
officer approached his legally parked vehicle very slowly, pulled up in the middle
of the road while training a spotlight on Cyrus, and ordered him to stay in his
vehicle. He argues the seizure was without probable cause or reasonable
suspicion, violating his rights under Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. Both Officer Morgan
4
and Cyrus testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress, and the court viewed
dashcam video from the encounter. The district court denied Cyrus’s motion, ruling
that, under the totality of the circumstances, it was a consensual encounter where
“a reasonable person in Mr. Cyrus’[s] position would have felt free to leave.” The
court found Cyrus not credible, ruled Cyrus’s subjective feelings about whether he
was free to leave were not relevant, and was not convinced Officer Morgan said
anything directly to Cyrus after saying “How are you tonight?”
Cyrus waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated to a trial on the minutes
of testimony. The court convicted Cyrus of carrying weapons, suspended his
prison sentence, and placed him on probation.
Cyrus appeals the denial of his motion to suppress.
II. Standard of Review.
“When a defendant challenges a district court’s denial of a motion to
suppress based upon the deprivation of a state or federal constitutional right, our
standard of review is de novo.” State v. Brown, 890 N.W.2d 315, 321 (Iowa 2017).
“We examine the entire record to independently evaluate the totality of the
circumstances based on each case’s unique situation.” State v. Price-Williams,
973 N.W.2d 556, 561 (Iowa 2022). “We give deference to the district court’s fact
findings due to its opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, but we are
not bound by those findings.” Brown, 890 N.W.2d at 321 (citation omitted).
III. Analysis.
The only question before us is whether Cyrus was seized within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.
5
“The defendant has the burden of proof as to whether a seizure occurred.” State
v. Fogg, 936 N.W.2d 664, 668 (Iowa 2019).
“[O]ne of the norms of society we have grown up with is that we should
cooperate with law enforcement.” Id. at 669. When approached by an officer, the
encounter is consensual “[u]nless the circumstances of the encounter are so
intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he
was not free to leave.” State v. Reinders, 690 N.W.2d 78, 82 (Iowa 2004) (citation
omitted); see United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 (2002) (“If a reasonable
person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been
seized.”).
Whether a “seizure” occurred is determined by the totality of
the circumstances. Factors that might suggest a seizure include
the threatening presence of several officers, the
display of a weapon by an officer, some physical
touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of
language or tone of voice indicating that compliance
with the officer’s request might be compelled.
In contrast, “otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the
public and the police cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a seizure
of that person.”
State v. Wilkes, 756 N.W.2d 838, 842–43 (Iowa 2008) (internal citations omitted).
Our supreme court has recently explained:
Regardless of how the totality-of-the-circumstances test is
described, each case requires a conscientious examination of the
conditions in which the consent was given with no one condition
being dispositive. Going forward, courts should continue to apply our
decades of precedent analyzing consent searches under the totality-
of-the-circumstances test . . . , which we have held involves
considering an unlimited universe of factors, including
personal characteristics of the [consenter], such as
age, education, intelligence, sobriety, and experience
with the law; and features of the context in which the
consent was given, such as the length of detention or
questioning, the substance of any discussion between
6
the [consenter] and police preceding the consent,
whether the [consenter] was free to leave or was
subject to restraint, and whether the [consenter’s]
contemporaneous reaction to the search was
consistent with consent.
State v. Hauge, 973 N.W.2d 453, 468 (Iowa 2022) (alterations and emphasis in
original) (quoting State v. Lane, 726 N.W.2d 371, 378 (Iowa 2007)).
“One way of looking at the matter is whether the officer was simply engaging
in activity that any private person would have a right to engage in.” Fogg, 936
N.W.2d at 669 (emphasis in original). “The critical factor is whether the police
[officer], even if making inquiries a private citizen would not, has otherwise
conducted himself in a manner which would be perceived as a nonoffensive
contact if it occurred between two ordinary citizens.” Id. at 670 (quoting 4 Wayne
R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 9.4(a), at
581–82 (5th ed. 2012)). “The element of coercion is not established by ordinary
indicia of police authority. The mere showing of a badge by a police officer does
not create a seizure.” Wilkes, 756 N.W.2d at 843. “The fact that an officer is in
uniform or visibly armed ‘should have little weight in the analysis.’” Id. (quoting
Drayton, 536 U.S. at 204).
Cyrus suggests several factors combined to create a coercive environment.
These factors include the use of rear-facing lights on the patrol car’s light bar, the
training of the spotlight on Cyrus’s car door, and the officer’s quick exit from the
patrol vehicle. Cyrus also states the officer told him to remain in the vehicle and
asks that we consider as a relevant circumstance the societal element of “driving
while Black” in 2020.
7
The State goes through each element of the encounter individually to
explain why it was not coercive,3 including the fact that Officer Morgan testified he
was trying to keep it casual and so would not have used the language “stay in the
car.” However, we have to look not only at the effect of each element alone, but
the totality of the circumstances.
Iowa courts have long recognized “[t]he use of sirens, flashing lights or other
signals . . . might . . . constitute a show of authority that is a seizure.” State v.
Harlan, 301 N.W.2d 717, 720 (Iowa 1981). More, the use of flashing lights–and
the use of specifically colored flashing lights—is prescribed by statute. Iowa Code
§ 321.423 (limiting the use of flashing lights and specific colors to specialized
vehicles). It is unclear from the record whether Cyrus could or did see the rear-
facing flashing lights, which decreases their weight in the totality of the
circumstances. Activation of the rear-facing lights, particularly if not seen by the
driver, is insufficient on its own to establish a seizure. See State v. Prusha, 874
N.W.2d 627, 628, 630 (Iowa 2016) (stating a deputy “did not activate his vehicle’s
emergency lights” when he had “activated the vehicle’s rear amber directional
lights); see also State v. Bakula, No. 08-0629, 2008 WL 5005196, at *2 (Iowa Ct.
App. Nov. 26, 2008) (concluding when the top front lights were not flashing or
spinning, a “bare assertion that the deputy’s lights were on does not establish a
3 The district court declined to examine the State’s argument that the officer had a
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, which is an exception to the warrant
requirement, see, e.g., State v. Warren, 955 N.W.2d 848, 866 (Iowa 2021); the
State properly did not raise the issue on appeal. See Lamasters v. State, 821
N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that
issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we
will decide them on appeal.”).
8
seizure”). Even if they had been seen, the record indicates the flashing lights may
have been amber, rather than emergency red and blue. Cf. Iowa Code § 321.279(establishing the visual signal to stop under the eluding statute is “flashing red light,
or . . . flashing red and blue lights”); State v. Chumley, No. 17-2036, 2018 WL
5839650, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2018) (clarifying “the accepted
understanding of emergency lights as red and blue”).
Next, we address the use of the spotlight. Our statutes provide any vehicle
may have a spot lamp, and set minimal restrictions on their use. See Iowa Code
§ 321.402. We think the use of the spotlight is somewhat—though not entirely—
analogous to the use of ordinary headlights. “[T]he use of ordinary headlights at
night is simply not coercive in the same manner as the activation of emergency
lights which invoke police authority and imply a police command to stop and
remain.” Wilkes, 756 N.W.2d at 844. While the spotlight may not be coercive in
the same way as activated emergency lights, the manner in which it is used on a
marked patrol car is certainly relevant to the question of whether a reasonable
person would feel free to leave. 4
4 Other states generally agree the use of a spotlight alone is not sufficient to
change the nature of the encounter from consensual to a seizure, but its use is
relevant under a totality of the circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Baker, 107 P.3d
1214, 1218 (Idaho 2004) (“This Court joins the many other jurisdictions which have
held that the use of a spotlight alone would not lead a reasonable person to believe
that he was not free to leave, though it may be considered under the totality of the
circumstances.”); State v. Richardson, 23 So.3d 254, 257 (La. 2009) (“While the
use of a spotlight to illuminate an individual or an automobile on a public street
may constitute a seizure when combined with other circumstances, such as a
blocking action taken by the police to impede any progress, it does not alone cause
the encounter to lose its consensual character because it ‘may also indicate to the
reasonable person that the officer is carrying out his community caretaking
function, and such conduct is frequently necessary to protect officers during any
type of night-time police-citizen encounter.’” (internal citations omitted)); State v.
9
The location of a patrol car in relation to a parked vehicle is “a factor in
determining whether a seizure occurred under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. Wholly
blocking in a car cannot be considered consensual, “but where egress was only
slightly restricted, with approximately ten to twenty feet between the two vehicles,”
vehicle positioning “does not create a detention.” Id.; see also Fogg, 936 N.W.2d
at 670 (finding when officer’s vehicle blocked forward egress in an alley but
defendant was not “boxed in” because “she could have driven backward either with
or without turning around” and no seizure occurred); State v. Kurth, 813 N.W.2d
270, 278 (Iowa 2012) (holding the officer’s decision to activate his emergency
lights and block in the defendant’s parked vehicle exceeded the scope of bona fide
community caretaking activity). Here, Officer Morgan parked a few feet to the side
and towards the back of Cyrus’s vehicle, leaving Cyrus’s vehicle adequate space
to pull forward on the dead-end street to be able to turn around and leave. We
recognize Officer Morgan’s decision to park in the middle of the road increased the
impact of the spotlight on Cyrus’s door and was done in a manner not permitted to
ordinary citizens. Compare Iowa Code § 321.361 (requiring vehicles stopped or
parked on a road way be “parallel to and within eighteen inches of the right-hand
curb), with id. § 321.231(2)(a) (allowing the driver of an authorized emergency
vehicle to “[p]ark or stand an authorized emergency vehicle, irrespective of the
provisions of this chapter” if using an audible warning device or “visual signaling
Clayton, 45 P.3d 30, 35 (Mont. 2002) (finding officers pulling in behind defendant
and shining spotlight without siren or emergency lights did not constitute a seizure);
State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236, 245 n.43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(collecting cases across jurisdictions examining the role of “blue flashers” and
patrol car spotlights in determining whether the circumstances constitute a
seizure).
10
device”). This created a setting where “police plainly have the upper hand and are
exerting authority in a fashion that makes it likely that a citizen would not feel free”
to act. See State v. Pals, 805 N.W.2d 767, 783 (Iowa 2011) (observing in a traffic
stop, a citizen is unlikely to feel free to decline to consent to a search unrelated to
the rationale of the stop); see also Fogg, 936 N.W.2d at 670. Yet, under our current
case law, this is not enough to rise to the level of coercion marking an illegal
seizure.
Finally, we come to the question whether Cyrus’s minority status is relevant
in our analysis. Cyrus raised an issue as to the officer’s and Cyrus’s subjective
intents, citing a series of fatal encounters in 2020 of Black persons with police and
relying on dissents in supreme court cases analyzing pretextual traffic stops. See
State v. Brown, 930 N.W.2d 840, 867–68 (Iowa 2019) (Cady, C.J., dissenting)
(examining the effect of implicit bias on an officer’s choice when to enforce a traffic
law); id. at 922–23 (Appel, J., dissenting) (looking at the harm caused by pretextual
stops, racial profiling, and stigmatization). The State argues, “A reasonableness
test that varies based on any individual’s unique status would be exceedingly
difficult . . . to apply fairly.” The district court flatly rejected the subjective-intent
argument, describing it as a “deviat[ion] from current precedent.” It is not for this
court to change the long-standing objective basis evaluation of a reasonable
person. State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697, 700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (“We are
not at liberty to overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.”); see also State v. Miller,
841 N.W.2d 583, 584 n.1 (Iowa 2014) (“Generally, it is the role of the supreme
court to decide if case precedent should no longer be followed.”).
11
We conclude that while the officer’s actions placed Cyrus in a situation with
an unarguable “moral and instinctive pressure[ ] to cooperate,” Officer Morgan did
not engage in conduct recognized by our courts as a coercive environment
“significantly beyond that accepted in social intercourse” constituting an illegal
seizure. See Fogg, 936 N.W.2d at 670 (quoting 4 LaFave, Search and Seizure
§ 9.4(a), at 581–82). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Cyrus’s
motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.