Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Steven Cameron ( 2021 )

RENDERED: JANUARY 29, 2021; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-0467-MR
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE RODERICK MESSER, SPECIAL JUDGE
ACTION NO. 19-CR-00120-001
STEVEN CAMERON APPELLEE
AND NO. 2020-CA-0594-MR
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE RODERICK MESSER, SPECIAL JUDGE
ACTION NO. 19-CR-00120-002
PAULA CAMERON APPELLEE
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, L., JUDGE: The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from an
order of the Rockcastle Circuit Court which granted Steven and Paula Cameron’s
motions to suppress evidence seized by police at a traffic stop and evidence seized
from a search of their home. We find that the trial court must make additional
findings before we can fully adjudicate this case; therefore, we reverse and
remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 7, 2019, Officer Ryan Messinger and another officer of the
Mount Vernon Police Department were dispatched to the Cameron residence
regarding a possible domestic disturbance. When Officer Messinger arrived, Ms.
Cameron was in the driveway and indicated that Mr. Cameron had just left in his
vehicle. Officer Messinger had witnessed the vehicle leave the scene. Officer
Messinger caught up to Mr. Cameron and initiated a traffic stop. The other officer
dispatched to the residence remained with Ms. Cameron.
Officer Messinger exited his vehicle and approached Mr. Cameron’s
vehicle. Officer Messinger made contact with Mr. Cameron and asked him
-2-
questions regarding the possible domestic disturbance. After speaking with Mr.
Cameron, Officer Messinger spoke with the other officer who had remained with
Ms. Cameron. Officer Messinger learned that Ms. Cameron claimed Mr. Cameron
had hit her. Officer Messinger then arrested Mr. Cameron.
During the arrest, Officer Messinger asked Mr. Cameron if he “had
anything on him” and Mr. Cameron indicated he had medication with him. Mr.
Cameron then emptied his pockets and placed the medication bottle onto the
vehicle. Mr. Cameron was then placed in handcuffs and taken to Officer
Messinger’s vehicle. While being put into the back of the police vehicle, the other
officer on the scene brought the pill bottle to Officer Messinger’s attention.
According to Officer Messinger, the medication was in Mr. Cameron’s name, the
prescription had been filled that day for 150 Oxycodone, and the bottle was about
half empty. Officer Messinger testified that while the officers were discussing the
medication, Mr. Cameron stated that he did not like to carry so many pills around
with him and the missing pills were at his home. Mr. Cameron also allegedly
stated that he owed someone 17 pills.
Later Officer Cameron learned from the county attorney that members
of the public had made complaints that Mr. Cameron had been selling drugs and
that Mr. Cameron had a previous conviction for drug trafficking. Based on this
information, the missing pills, and Mr. Cameron’s statements at his arrest, Officer
-3-
Messinger obtained a search warrant for the Cameron residence. During the
execution of the search warrant, police officers found some of the missing pills
from Mr. Cameron’s prescription pill bottle, one half of a Suboxone pill, and
$11,000 in cash. Mr. and Mrs. Cameron were then indicted on first-degree
trafficking in a controlled substance.1
Mr. and Mrs. Cameron later moved to suppress the evidence obtained
at the traffic stop and the evidence found during the search of the residence. They
argued that the search of the pill bottle was unlawful, that Mr. Cameron’s
statements to the police after his arrest violated Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,
86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), that the search warrant was invalid because
it was based on illegally obtained evidence, and that all evidence seized should be
inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Commonwealth claimed that the
search of the pill bottle was permitted as a search incident to arrest, the statements
made by Mr. Cameron were voluntary, and the search warrant was valid.
Alternatively, the Commonwealth argued that even if the search warrant was
invalid, the officers who executed it reasonably relied on it; therefore, the evidence
recovered from the residence should be admissible pursuant to the good faith
exception found in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82
L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984).
1
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 218A.1412.
-4-
A hearing on the motions to suppress was held on February 28, 2020,
and Officer Messinger was the only witness to testify. On March 16, 2020, the
trial court entered a one-paragraph order granting the motions to suppress. The
order stated in pertinent part that
all evidence obtained as a result of the search incident to
the arrest of Steven Cameron shall be suppressed as the
search extended beyond the scope of a lawful search
incident to arrest and, furthermore, that any and all
evidence seized or obtained as a result of the search
incident to the subsequent Search Warrant shall also be
suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
The court then cited to Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d
485 (2009). This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Our standard of review of a circuit court’s decision on
a suppression motion following a hearing is twofold.
First, the factual findings of the court are conclusive if
they are supported by substantial evidence. The second
prong involves a de novo review to determine whether
the court’s decision is correct as a matter of law.
Stewart v. Commonwealth, 44 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Ky. App. 2000) (footnotes and
citations omitted).
Here, we are unable to meaningfully review this case because the trial
court did not make findings of fact and did not address all the issues raised by the
parties. “When factual issues are involved in deciding a [suppression] motion, the
court shall state its essential findings on the record. These essential findings — a
-5-
statement of the facts necessary to the motion — are required for proper review on
appeal.” Warick v. Commonwealth, 592 S.W.3d 276, 287 (Ky. 2019) (citations,
footnote, and quotation marks omitted). The trial court did not state which facts
supported its conclusion as to why the search incident to arrest was unlawful, did
not indicate if the statements made by Mr. Cameron were also suppressed, and did
not address the Commonwealth’s argument regarding the good faith exception
found in Leon.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand. On remand the trial
court should address all the issues raised by the parties and cite to sufficient facts
to support its conclusions of law. Should the trial court again suppress all the
evidence, the court will also need to indicate if Ms. Cameron is able to challenge
the search warrant based on the impermissible search of her husband. In other
words, were her Fourth Amendment rights violated by the impermissible search of
her husband?2 Warick, 592 S.W.3d at 281.
ALL CONCUR.
2
This is sometimes referred to as Fourth Amendment standing.
-6-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEFS FOR APPELLEES:
Daniel Cameron Gregory A. Ousley
Attorney General of Kentucky Somerset, Kentucky
Courtney J. Hightower
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-7-