Sandra J. Turner v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2020 )

RENDERED: AUGUST 28, 2020; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2019-CA-000244-MR
SANDRA J. TURNER APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM WEBSTER CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE C. RENÉ WILLIAMS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 18-CR-00020
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON, AND KRAMER, JUDGES.
ACREE, JUDGE: Sandra Turner appeals the Webster Circuit Court’s December
17, 2018 order denying her motion to suppress. She believes the circuit court erred
in denying her motion because the Fish and Wildlife officer exceeded his authority
under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 150.090. Finding no error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On February 16, 2018, Officer Todd Jones1 of the Kentucky
Department of Fish and Wildlife saw Mrs. Bonnie Trent at the Huck’s
Convenience Store in Providence, Kentucky. Officer Jones knew Mrs. Trent to be
an avid drug user. Upon Mrs. Trent leaving the store, Officer Jones went in and
asked the cashier what Mrs. Trent bought. The cashier told him that she just used
the ATM. Officer Jones followed Mrs. Trent to Turner’s residence.
After Mrs. Trent left Turner’s residence, Officer Jones contacted
Sheriff Frankie Springfield, who ultimately pulled over Mrs. Trent’s vehicle for
expired tags. In the car with Mrs. Trent was her husband, Mr. Donald Trent.
Sheriff Springfield talked to Mrs. Trent, while Officer Jones talked with Mr. Trent.
Mr. Trent said they went to Turner’s house to purchase and use methamphetamine.
Mrs. Trent consented to a search of her purse, where Officer Jones found the
purchased methamphetamine.
Officer Jones and Sheriff Springfield went to Turner’s home.
However, no one was home. At this point, Officer Jones left to get a warrant while
Sheriff Springfield stayed at Turner’s home. While Officer Jones was at the
courthouse, Sheriff Springfield called him and told him Turner was home and
1
Officer Jones is retired from the Kentucky State Police. He began working for the Kentucky
Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2011.
-2-
consented to a search. When Officer Jones arrived back at Turner’s house, she was
filling out a consent to search form. After searching Turner’s home, Officer Jones
found pills, methamphetamine, a glass methamphetamine pipe, and marijuana in
Turner’s purse.
After the discovery of drugs, Turner asked for her attorney. Officer
Jones interpreted that to mean a withdrawal of consent and went to get a search
warrant. The culmination of these events led the Webster County grand jury to
indict Turner on charges of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance,
possession of drug paraphernalia, controlled substance not in its proper
prescription container, and possession of marijuana.
Turner filed a motion to suppress arguing the search of her home was
unlawful. The circuit court held a suppression hearing on September 12, 2018. At
this hearing, Turner argued Officer Jones exceeded the scope of his authority as a
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife officer under KRS 150.090. Officer
Jones testified he had authority because the Commissioner of the Kentucky State
Police gave him authority in a letter dated April 7, 2016. In that letter, the
Commissioner requested “all officers of the Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources, who maintain Peace Officer’s Professional Standard
certification, assist KSP in the enforcement of all criminal laws in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.”
-3-
Ultimately, the circuit court denied Turner’s motion to dismiss and
motion to suppress. The circuit court found:
Even though Officer T. Jones did begin his observations
on the Trents at the convenience store in Providence, he
took no action until the WCSO[2] was involved and had
stopped the Trents for the expired tags. Based on the
information obtained at that time, he then “assisted” the
WCSO with the continued investigation of the
Defendant’s involvement in the situation.
(Trial Record (TR) at p. 101.) Because of the circuit court’s ruling, Turner entered
a conditional guilty plea reserving her right to appeal the suppression issue. This
appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 8.27 sets out the
procedure for conducting a suppression hearing. When the trial court conducts a
hearing, our standard of review is two-fold. Adcock v. Commonwealth, 967
S.W.2d 6, 8 (Ky. 1998). First, the factual findings of the trial court are conclusive
if they are supported by substantial evidence. Id. Second, based on those findings
of fact, “we must then conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of
the law to those facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of
2
Webster County Sheriff’s Office.
-4-
law.” Payton v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468, 471-72 (Ky. 2010) (citation
omitted).
ANALYSIS
Turner argues the circuit court erred by denying her motion to
suppress because Officer Jones exceeded his authority under KRS 150.090.3 We
disagree. At the time of Turner’s arrest, the statute read as follows:
Conservation officers appointed by the commissioner
shall have full powers as peace officers for the
enforcement of all of the laws of the Commonwealth,
except that they shall not enforce laws other than this
chapter and the administrative regulations issued
thereunder or to serve process unless so directed by the
commissioner in life threatening situations or when
assistance is requested by another law enforcement
agency.
KRS 150.090(1) (emphases added). This statute carves out two exceptions giving
the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife the ability to act outside its normal
scope of authority. The first exception is in life-threatening situations, such as in
Mercer v. Commonwealth, 880 S.W.2d 899, 900 (Ky. App. 1994). In Mercer, Fish
3
KRS 150.090 was recently amended, effective June 27, 2019. The new version of this statute
abolishes the exceptions and gives conservation officers full power as peace officers to enforce
all the laws of the Commonwealth. The statute now reads, “Conservation officers appointed by
the commissioner shall have full powers as peace officers for the enforcement of all of the laws
of the Commonwealth, including the administrative regulations promulgated pursuant to KRS
Chapters 150 and 235 and to serve process.” See KRS 150.090(2). However, given this statute
was amended subsequent to Turner’s charges, we review this case using the language in effect at
the time of the circuit court’s ruling.
-5-
and Wildlife officers arrested Mercer for a DUI. This Court found that even
though a DUI is outside of the Fish and Wildlife Department’s authority, the arrest
was lawful because it was a life-threatening situation.
The second exception is when assistance is requested by another law
enforcement agency. In this case, the Kentucky State Police Commissioner issued
a letter on April 7, 2016, requesting assistance from the Department of Fish and
Wildlife in the enforcement of all criminal laws in the Commonwealth. Officer
Jones stated he relied on this letter for authority in assisting in the investigation.
However, Turner argues Officer Jones did not “assist” in the
investigation, but actually “led” the investigation. Turner tries to distinguish
between “leading” an investigation and “assisting” in an investigation. However,
this distinction does not need to be made. Sheriff Springfield was the one who
made the traffic stop and questioned the driver. Officer Jones assisted by
questioning the passenger.
Regardless whether Officer Jones initiated the actions taken by police,
actively participated, and sought the search warrant, he was permitted to do so
under the authority of the Commissioner. The Commissioner sought help in
enforcing all the Commonwealth’s criminal laws. It does not state Fish and
Wildlife officers needed to merely “assist” police officers. Officer Jones believed
criminal activity was afoot, contacted the Sheriff, and worked on the case
-6-
alongside the WCSO, assisting in the enforcement of the Commonwealth’s
criminal laws just as requested and, thereby, authorized. Officer Jones did not take
any action until the WCSO was involved. Everything he did was alongside the
WCSO.
Lastly, Turner argues the enforcement of the criminal laws was
limited in the Commissioner’s letter. The letter went on to say that the authority
was given to the Fish and Wildlife Department because they are in a “unique
position to assist KSP. In the execution of their duties Fish and Wildlife Officers
patrol the forests, rivers, fields and lakes of our Commonwealth. Through their
activity they will inevitably witness incidents of criminal offenses that might not
be revealed.” However, this is not a limitation to only enforcing the laws in the
forests, rivers, fields, and lakes. This language is more akin to a justification for
extending this authority to the Fish and Wildlife Department. There is no basis
here for reversing the denial of Turner’s suppression motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Webster Circuit Court’s
December 17, 2018 order denying Turner’s motion to suppress.
ALL CONCUR.
-7-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Roy Alyette Durham, II Andy Beshear
Frankfort, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Courtney J. Hightower
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-8-