Thomas J. Davis v. Commonwealth of Kentucky , 2016 Ky. LEXIS 99 ( 2016 )

I 12
RENDEREDMARCH
ARCH 17, ,2,016
lye PUBLISH ED
*tyrrntr Court of 7
2014-SC-000405-MR
_t4-1-110
THOMAS J. DAVIS APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM MCLEAN CIRCUIT COURT
V. HONORABLE BRIAN WIGGINS, JUDGE
NO. 14-CR-000007
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE VENTERS
REVERSING AND REMANDING
Appellant, Thomas J. Davis, entered a conditional guilty plea in the
McLean Circuit Court to charges of first-degree trafficking in a controlled
substance, first-degree possession of drug paraphernalia, and being a first-
degree persistent felony offender. Judgment was entered accordingly, and
pursuant to the plea agreement, he was sentenced to a total of twenty years in
prison.
The issue preserved for appeal is the trial court's denial of Appellant's
motion to suppress evidence that was found on his person and in his car
following a sniff search by a narcotics-detection dog. The search was
conducted after a routine traffic stop, which Appellant contends was unlawfully
extended beyond its original purpose to enable the sniff search. In addition to
evidence found on his person and in his car, Appellant seeks to suppress
incriminating statements he made following his arrest. For the reasons stated
below, we reverse Appellant's conviction and remand this case to the trial court
for further proceedings.
L FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Officer Tim McCoy was on duty in the late evening hours, parked on the
side of a remote gravel road in a rural area of McLean County, as he described
it, "looking for DUI drivers." Riding with McCoy that evening was his canine
partner, Chico. Chico is a trained and certified narcotics-search dog. McCoy
was aware of allegations that Appellant was involved with illegal drugs. Earlier
that day he had discussed those allegations with other police officers. As
McCoy sat by the roadside on the lookout for drunk drivers, Appellant drove
by, and McCoy decided to follow him.
RCr 8.27 governs motions to suppress evidence and requires the trial
court to "state its essential findings on the record." RCr 8.27(5), RCr 8.20(2);
see also CR 52.01. On appellate review of the denial of a motion to suppress
evidence, we first review the trial court's findings of fact under the clearly
erroneous standard; 1 under this standard, the trial court's findings of fact will
1 A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is supported by substantial
evidence, that is, "evidence of substance and relevant consequence having the fitness
to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men." Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
v..Golightly, 976 S.W.2d 409, 414 (Ky. 1998) (citations omitted).
2
be conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. Simpson v.
Commonwealth, 474 S.W.3d 544, 547 (Ky. 2015).
Appellant does not challenge the trial court's factual findings. We find
them to be supported by substantial evidence, and so they are binding upon
our review. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in its application of
the law to the facts which, in Appellant's view, compelled a conclusion that
Chico's sniff search was illegal because it occurred after McCoy had
accomplished the purpose of the traffic stop. We undertake a de novo review of
the trial court's application of the law to the facts to determine whether its
decision to deny the motion to suppress was correct as a matter of law. Id.; see
also Payton v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468, 471-472 (Ky. 2010).
Following the suppression hearing, the trial court found the facts to be
as follows. McCoy saw Appellant's vehicle cross the center line of the road two
or three times, a well-known indication that the driver may be intoxicated.
McCoy then initiated a traffic stop. When he approached the driver's window,
McCoy recognized Appellant and smelled alcohol coming from within the
vehicle. He also noticed an open beer can in the center console next to the
driver. McCoy asked Appellant about the beer can, and Appellant said that he
had just opened it and had drank about half of it.
McCoy then asked Appellant to exit the vehicle. Over the next few
minutes, McCoy conducted a pat-down search of Appellant and he
administered two field sobriety tests. Appellant passed both tests. The
preliminary breath test registered no presence of alcohol.
3
McCoy then asked if he could search Appellant's vehicle. Appellant
refused to consent to the search, telling McCoy that several people had recently
used his car, and he did not know what was in it. At that point, McCoy
informed the defendant that he was going to have Chico perform a sniff search
of the vehicle's exterior. Although Appellant objected, the sniff search
proceeded.
According to the trial court's finding, Chico sniffed for "approximately
one to two minutes" before he "alerted 'on a lower panel door of the vehicle,
indicating to McCoy that narcotics were inside." By that time, another officer
had arrived on the scene. Appellant's person was more thoroughly searched
and a quantity of what looked like methamphetamine was found. Thirteen
minutes after the initial stop, Appellant was arrested and taken into in
custody.
When the officers searched the interior of the Appellant's vehicle, they
found more methamphetamine, scales, syringes, and plastic baggies. Upon
later interrogation at the sheriff's office, and after receiving his Miranda
warnings, Appellant admitted he was involved in the drug trade because he
had lost his job after he had refused to take a drug test.
The trial court also found that McCoy's purpose for conducting the traffic
stop was to "stop a careless driver in order to verify his sobriety (or lack
thereof)." This particular finding was mentioned in the "Conclusions of Law"
section of the trial court's order. It is, nevertheless, a factual matter that is
crucial to our review.
4
II. ANALYSIS
Appellant moved to suppress the incriminating evidence discovered on
his person and in his vehicle, as well as his subsequent admissions, on the
basis that all of the evidence was the fruit of an illegal search that occurred
after the lawful traffic stop was unlawfully extended. "It has long been
considered reasonable for an officer to conduct a traffic stop if he or she has
probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred." Commonwealth
v. Ducal°, 422 S.W.3d 253, 258 (Ky. 2013) (citing Wilson v. Commonwealth, 37
S.W.3d 745 (Ky. 2001)." "As long as an officer 'has probable cause to believe a
civil traffic violation has occurred, [he] may stop [the] vehicle regardless of his
or her subjective motivation in doing so." Id. (quoting Wilson, 37 S.W.3d at
749); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permitting an investigatory
detention upon a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot).
We agree with the trial court that Officer McCoy lawfully stopped
Appellant's vehicle after witnessing it cross the center line. This observed
violation, supported by the observation of the open beer can in the car,
provided reasonable suspicion that Appellant may have been driving while
intoxicated. Accordingly, McCoy was authorized to detain Appellant for the
routine purpose of determining his state of sobriety and his ability to drive.
This lawful detention properly extended throughout the time required to
administer the two field sobriety tests. The critical question is whether, after
the field sobriety tests and McCoy's personal observation of Appellant
substantially eliminated a legitimate concern about Appellant's sobriety, it was
lawful to prolong the detention to enable Chico to perform the sniff search.
"Although an officer may detain a vehicle and its occupants in order to
conduct an ordinary traffic stop, 'any subsequent detention . . . must not be
excessively intrusive in that the officer's actions must be reasonably related in
scope to circumstances justifying the initial interference."' Turley v.
Commonwealth, 399 S.W..3d 412, 421 (Ky. 2013) (quoting United States v.
Davis, 430 F3d 345, 353 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted)). 2 "Thus, an officer
cannot detain a vehicle's occupants beyond completion of the purpose of the
initial traffic stop unless something happened during the stop to cause the
officer to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity [is]
afoot." Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted); see also United States v.
Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir.1998). 3 If the traffic stop is prolonged
beyond the time required for the purpose of the stop, "the subsequent
2 See also Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005) ("A seizure that is justified
solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it
is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.").
In Caballes, while one officer was writing a warning ticket, another officer walked the
narcotics-detection dog around the car. The dog alerted at the trunk, the officers
searched it, found marijuana, and then arrested Caballes. The entire event lasted less
than ten minutes. The Court "accept[ed] the state court's conclusion that the duration
of the stop in th[at] case was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary
inquiries incident to such a stop." Id. at 408.
3 In United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir.1998), the Tenth Circuit
noted two circumstances that may justify an extended detention beyond the purpose
of the initial stop. First, the officer may detain the driver for questioning unrelated to
the initial stop if he acquires an objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion illegal
activity has occurred or is occurring; Second, further questioning unrelated to the
initial stop is permissible if the initial detention has become a consensual encounter.
Neither circumstance is present in this case.
6
discovery of contraband is the product of an unconstitutional seizure." Epps v.
Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Ky. 2009) (citation omitted).
In Epps, 4 we explained that a canine sniff search for drugs itself does not
necessarily implicate Fourth Amendment concerns because a vehicle owner
has no reasonable expectation of privacy that this mode of narcotics detection
will not be used during a legitimate traffic stop. Id. at 810. As long as the sniff
search is conducted during the course of a lawful traffic stop, including any
lawful extensions of the traffic stop, the search is proper and does not violate
the Fourth Amendment. Johnson v. Commonwealth, 179 S.W.3d 882, 884 (Ky.
App. 2005) (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983) ("Investigative
detention [in relation to a narcotics canine sniff search] must be temporary and
last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.").
However, as recently clarified by the United States Supreme Court
in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), a police officer may not
extend a traffic stop beyond its original purpose for the sole purpose of
conducting a sniff search—riot even for a de minimus period of time.
In Rodriguez, a police officer stopped Rodriguez for driving on a highway
shoulder in violation of Nebraska law. After completing all matters related to
4 In Epps the driver was stopped for making an illegal turn. After the driver denied a
request to consent to a search of his vehicle a narcotics detection canine was brought
to the scene and alerted on the vehicle. Upon review we held that "Simply put, the
scope and duration of the stop in this case—fifteen minutes before the narcotics-
detection dog arrived, thirty to forty more minutes for the dog to search the car, one
hour before the driver was given a citation, and 90 minutes of total detention before
the Appellant-passenger was arrested—exceeded that allowed for a mere traffic
offense. The stop, therefore, was unreasonable and so prolonged as to be unjustified."
Id. at 813 (citation and internal quotes omitted).
7
the purpose of the stop, including the issuance of a warning for the traffic
violation and checking the driver's licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger, the
officer asked if Rodriguez would permit a police dog to walk around the vehicle.
When Rodriguez refused, the officer detained him until a second officer arrived.
The canine was then directed to search, and it alerted to the presence of drugs
in the vehicle. The ensuing search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight
minutes elapsed between the issuance of the traffic warning and the dog's
alert. Id. at 1612.
After his indictment on federal drug charges, Rodriguez moved to
suppress the fruits of the dog sniff search. The trial court concluded that,
under Eighth Circuit precedent, the extension of the stop by "seven to eight
minutes" while the dog sniffed was a de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez's
Fourth Amendment rights, Suppression was denied.. Id. at 1613. The Eighth
Circuit affirmed, stating that the delay constituted an acceptable "de minimis
intrusion on Rodriguez's personal liberty." Id.
The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that there is no de
minimis time exception to the rule that a traffic stop may not be extended
beyond its original purpose without an additional reasonable suspicion to do
so. The Rodriguez Court explained that, in addition to determining whether to
issue a traffic ticket, an officer's mission. includes "ordinary inquiries incident
to [the traffic] stop," such as checking for outstanding warrants, inspecting
auto registration, and proof of insurance, Id. at 1615 (citations omitted). "A
dog sniff, by contrast, is a measure aimed at detecting] evidence of ordinary
8
criminal wrongdoing," id. (internal citation and quotation omitted), and is not
an ordinary incident of a traffic stop. Id. A traffic stop prolonged beyond the
point reasonably required by the officer to complete the stop's mission is an
unlawful stop. Id. at 1616.
Significantly,, the Court concluded that a[t]he critical question, then, is
not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket .. .
but whether conducting the sniff "prolongs"—i.e., adds time to—"the stop[.]"
Id.
With this principle in mind, we return to the trial court's denial of
Appellant's motion to suppress. The trial court found that "McCoy's obvious
purpose was to stop a careless driver in order to verify his sobriety (or lack.
thereof)." Therefore, under Rodriguez, any nonconsensual extension of the
detention beyond the time taken to verify Appellant's sobriety, unless
accompanied by additional grounds to believe other criminal activity was afoot,
was unconstitutional.
The trial court concluded, however, that the purpose of the stop had not
been "effectuated," apparently because McCoy had not yet decided whether to
let Appellant go free or charge him with reckless driving and the open
container. In the trial court's analysis, "[t]he key issue [is] whether the
duration of the defendant's detention after the administration of the field
sobriety tests was so prolonged as to be unjustified," noting further:
Most importantly, the Court notes that the length of the stop from
its inception (11:06 p.m.) to the defendant's arrest (11:19 p.m.) was
only thirteen minutes. Obviously, the length of the stop from its
9
inception to the point that the canine alerted to the presence of
narcotics was of an even shorter duration. All things considered,
this Court simply cannot characterize the length of the defendant's
detention as unreasonable.
(Emphasis added.)
However, as explained in Rodriguez, any prolonging of the stop beyond
its original purpose is unreasonable and unjustified; there is no "de minimus
exception" to the rule that a traffic stop cannot be prolonged for reasons
unrelated to the purpose of the stop. To the extent that Epps and Johnson
suggest otherwise, they ate necessarily overruled by our acknowledgment of
Rodriguez. The "key questiOn" is not whether the duration of Appellant's
roadside detention was unreasonable; rather, it is whether the sniff search was
related to the purpose for which Appellant was stopped; that is, a DUI traffic
stop to ascertain. a driver's sobriety.
McCoy's testimony regarding the status of the stop after Appellant had
passed the two field tests was somewhat inconsistent. He first testified that he
determined that Appellant was not intoxicated when he passed the two sobriety
tests,.thus implying that the original purpose of the stop had been completed.
However, he later testified that,, after Appellant passed the field sobriety
checks, his focus shifted to determining if Appellant was driving under the
influence of narcotics rather than alcohol as indicated by the open beer can,
thus giving rise to the need for Chico's service. Under that reasoning, it is
argued, the "purpose of the stop" had not been effectuated because McCoy
opted to prolong the detention to resolve a lingering question of whether
10
Appellant, if not driving under the influence of alcohol, was instead driving
under the influence of drugs.
The problem with this reasoning is that, in addition to passing two
sobriety tests, no evidence suggests that Appellant's speech, demeanor, or
behavior otherwise exhibited any characteristics associated with drug or
alcohol intoxication from which an. officer might reasonably believe further
investigation was necessary. Moreover, a sniff search of the vehicle by Chico
could not possibly serve the purpose of the traffic stop by showing whether
Appellant was driving under the influence of any substance. The only reason
for the sniff search was to discover illegal drugs in Appellant's car, which adds
nothing to indicate if the driver is under the influence and is clearly beyond the
purpose of the original DUI stop. The evidence unequivocally established, and
the Commonwealth agrees, that McCoy had concluded his field sobriety
investigation. It is obvious that his purpose then shifted to a new and different
purpose. With no articulabl.e suspicion to authorize an extended detention to
search for drugs, McCoy prolonged the seizure and conducted the search in
violation of Rodripez and Appellant's Fourth Amendment protections.
Consequently, we conclude that. the fruits of that search must.be suppressed.
The Commonwealth suggests that even if the search was unlawful, the
evidence is not subject to suppression because it would have been inevitably
discovered. "In Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377
(1984), the United States Supreme COurt adopted the 'inevitable discovery rule'
to permit admission of evidence unlawfully obtained upon proof by a
11
preponderance of the evidence that the same evidence would have been
inevitably discovered by lawful means." Hughes v. Commonwealth, 87 S.W.3d
850, 853 (Ky. 2002).
Under this theory, Officer McCoy could have arrested Appellant for
reckless driving and the open container at the conclusion of the field sobriety
testing. He then would have been subject to search incident to arrest, and the
evidence on his person would have been discovered. Presumably, the drugs in
the car also would have been discovered either by an inventory search or a
search pursuant to a warrant..
However, with .no compelling indicators that Appellant was actually
intoxicated, it is far from inevitable that he would have been arrested by
McCoy. Obviously, McCoy was not satisfied from his own observations that he
should charge Appellant with DUI. Confined to what can be fairly gleaned from
the record, it is equally likely that McCoy would have disposed of the minor
offenses with a citation, or simply released the motorist with a warning. The
discovery of the evidence as suggested by the Commonwealth was not
inevitable.
HI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence obtained against the Appellant as
a result of the unlawful search should have been suppressed. The judgment of
the McLean Circuit Court is hereby reversed. This matter is remanded to the
McLean Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
All sitting. All concur.
12
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
JULIA KAROL PEARSON
ASSISTANT PUBLIC ADVOCATE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
ANDY BESHEAR
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KENTUCKY
JULIE SCOTT JERNIGAN
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
13