RENDERED: OCTOBER 28, 2022; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2021-CA-0817-MR
AARON JORDAN SLEET APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE KIMBERLY N. BUNNELL, JUDGE ACTION NO. 18-CR-00684
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: JONES, MAZE, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
MCNEILL, JUDGE: Aaron Jordan Sleet (“Sleet”) appeals from the Fayette Circuit
Court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence due to an unlawful search
of his vehicle. The trial court found probable cause based upon a police officer’s
testimony that he smelled marijuana. Sleet argues the officer’s testimony was
unreliable. Because witness credibility is within the exclusive province of the trial court, and the trial court’s finding that there was probable cause to search Sleet’s
vehicle was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On the evening of February 13, 2018, Officer Ryan Wells of the
Lexington Police Department stopped Sleet for driving with only one headlight.1
As he approached the vehicle, Officer Wells detected a brief odor of fresh
marijuana. After speaking with Sleet about the headlight and gathering his
information, Officer Wells returned to his cruiser to check for warrants and learned
that Sleet had a prior marijuana trafficking charge.2 Officers Phillip Johnson and
Joe Baker, who had arrived on scene to assist with the traffic stop, removed Sleet
from the vehicle.
Upon returning to Sleet’s vehicle, Officer Wells noticed torn pieces of
a plastic grocery bag, consistent with packaging narcotics for sale, on both the
driver’s and passenger’s side floorboards. The officers then searched the vehicle
based upon the smell of marijuana and the makeshift drug packaging, and found
marijuana shake in a cupholder and marijuana buds under the seats. In the
1 Officer Wells testified that he was part of Lexington Police Department’s Community Law Enforcement Action Response (CLEAR) Unit, responsible for proactive policing in high narcotic areas. 2 The record indicates the charge was later dismissed.
-2- backseat of the vehicle was a backpack containing marijuana, digital scales,
baggies of suspected powder cocaine, and rolling papers.
Sleet was indicted for first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance
(cocaine), first-degree promoting contraband, possession of drug paraphernalia,
possession of marijuana, and having a non-working headlight. Sleet moved to
suppress the evidence recovered during the traffic stop, arguing that the police
lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. At the suppression hearing, Officer
Wells testified that he smelled a brief odor of marijuana coming from Sleet’s
vehicle which, the Commonwealth argued, justified the officers’ search under the
plain smell doctrine.
Sleet challenged Officer Wells’ credibility, contending this claim was
only invented after the officers had searched the vehicle and found drugs. Sleet
pointed to the police body cam video which did not show Officer Wells say
anything about marijuana to either Sleet or the other officers. According to Sleet,
the traffic stop was a pretext to search for drugs and the probable cause fabricated.
In ruling on the motion to suppress, the trial court noted that whether
the police had probable cause to search the vehicle turned on whether Officer
Wells smelled marijuana. The trial court weighed the evidence and ultimately
found Officer Wells’ testimony reliable. It specifically pointed to the uniform
citation, where Officer Wells reported “slightly detect[ing]” a “faint” odor of
-3- marijuana and reasoned that if Officer Wells wanted to fabricate a justification for
the search retroactively, he likely would have used stronger language. The trial
court then denied the motion, holding the police had probable cause to search the
vehicle under the plain smell doctrine.
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, Sleet entered a
conditional guilty plea to attempted first-degree possession of a controlled
substance and possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to six months’
probation in accordance with the plea deal. This appeal followed. Other facts will
be set forth as necessary below.
ANALYSIS
“Our standard of review of the trial court’s denial of a suppression
motion is twofold. First, the trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive if they are
supported by substantial evidence; and second, the trial court’s legal conclusions
are reviewed de novo.” Milam v. Commonwealth, 483 S.W.3d 347, 349 (Ky.
2015). “Substantial evidence is evidence of substance and relevant consequence
having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men.”
Commonwealth v. Jennings, 490 S.W.3d 339, 346 (Ky. 2016) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
On appeal, Sleet concedes the smell of marijuana coming from a
person’s vehicle gives police probable cause to search their vehicle. See Greer v.
-4- Commonwealth, 514 S.W.3d 566, 568 (Ky. App. 2017). His sole argument is that
the trial court erred in finding Officer Wells’ claim that he smelled marijuana
reliable. Sleet contends this finding is not supported by substantial evidence
because no independent evidence supports Officer Wells’ testimony. He again
cites the body cam footage which contains no mention of marijuana, as well as
Officer Johnson’s testimony that Officer Wells never told him he smelled
marijuana prior to the search.3
However, “[t]he trial court is in the best position to judge the
credibility of witnesses and this Court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact
unless there is a clear error or abuse of discretion.” Greene v. Commonwealth, 244
S.W.3d 128, 136 (Ky. App. 2008) (citing Commonwealth v. Whitmore, 92 S.W.3d
76, 79 (Ky. 2002)). The trial court considered Sleet’s arguments, including
questioning why Officer Wells would inquire about a K-9 unit if he already had
probable cause to search based upon the smell of marijuana. But it disagreed with
Sleet that Officer Wells’ failure to confront Sleet about the odor of marijuana
3 On appeal, Sleet also cites an October 20, 2020, newspaper article reporting that Officer Wells recently received a six-week suspension for unsatisfactory performance. Sleet argues the article is further evidence that Officer Wells’ testimony is unreliable. However, we decline to consider this evidence because it was not before the trial court. Further, the newspaper article is inadmissible hearsay. See Bowling v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Government, 172 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Ky. 2005). The article is also of questionable relevance, because Officer Wells was reportedly disciplined for “his overall demeanor, not documenting and investigating incidents appropriately, and not treating detainees according to standards[.]” There were no allegations of falsifying evidence or lying under oath.
-5- proved the claim was a later fabrication. Instead, it reasoned Officer Wells’ silence
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RENDERED: OCTOBER 28, 2022; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2021-CA-0817-MR
AARON JORDAN SLEET APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE KIMBERLY N. BUNNELL, JUDGE ACTION NO. 18-CR-00684
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: JONES, MAZE, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
MCNEILL, JUDGE: Aaron Jordan Sleet (“Sleet”) appeals from the Fayette Circuit
Court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence due to an unlawful search
of his vehicle. The trial court found probable cause based upon a police officer’s
testimony that he smelled marijuana. Sleet argues the officer’s testimony was
unreliable. Because witness credibility is within the exclusive province of the trial court, and the trial court’s finding that there was probable cause to search Sleet’s
vehicle was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On the evening of February 13, 2018, Officer Ryan Wells of the
Lexington Police Department stopped Sleet for driving with only one headlight.1
As he approached the vehicle, Officer Wells detected a brief odor of fresh
marijuana. After speaking with Sleet about the headlight and gathering his
information, Officer Wells returned to his cruiser to check for warrants and learned
that Sleet had a prior marijuana trafficking charge.2 Officers Phillip Johnson and
Joe Baker, who had arrived on scene to assist with the traffic stop, removed Sleet
from the vehicle.
Upon returning to Sleet’s vehicle, Officer Wells noticed torn pieces of
a plastic grocery bag, consistent with packaging narcotics for sale, on both the
driver’s and passenger’s side floorboards. The officers then searched the vehicle
based upon the smell of marijuana and the makeshift drug packaging, and found
marijuana shake in a cupholder and marijuana buds under the seats. In the
1 Officer Wells testified that he was part of Lexington Police Department’s Community Law Enforcement Action Response (CLEAR) Unit, responsible for proactive policing in high narcotic areas. 2 The record indicates the charge was later dismissed.
-2- backseat of the vehicle was a backpack containing marijuana, digital scales,
baggies of suspected powder cocaine, and rolling papers.
Sleet was indicted for first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance
(cocaine), first-degree promoting contraband, possession of drug paraphernalia,
possession of marijuana, and having a non-working headlight. Sleet moved to
suppress the evidence recovered during the traffic stop, arguing that the police
lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. At the suppression hearing, Officer
Wells testified that he smelled a brief odor of marijuana coming from Sleet’s
vehicle which, the Commonwealth argued, justified the officers’ search under the
plain smell doctrine.
Sleet challenged Officer Wells’ credibility, contending this claim was
only invented after the officers had searched the vehicle and found drugs. Sleet
pointed to the police body cam video which did not show Officer Wells say
anything about marijuana to either Sleet or the other officers. According to Sleet,
the traffic stop was a pretext to search for drugs and the probable cause fabricated.
In ruling on the motion to suppress, the trial court noted that whether
the police had probable cause to search the vehicle turned on whether Officer
Wells smelled marijuana. The trial court weighed the evidence and ultimately
found Officer Wells’ testimony reliable. It specifically pointed to the uniform
citation, where Officer Wells reported “slightly detect[ing]” a “faint” odor of
-3- marijuana and reasoned that if Officer Wells wanted to fabricate a justification for
the search retroactively, he likely would have used stronger language. The trial
court then denied the motion, holding the police had probable cause to search the
vehicle under the plain smell doctrine.
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, Sleet entered a
conditional guilty plea to attempted first-degree possession of a controlled
substance and possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to six months’
probation in accordance with the plea deal. This appeal followed. Other facts will
be set forth as necessary below.
ANALYSIS
“Our standard of review of the trial court’s denial of a suppression
motion is twofold. First, the trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive if they are
supported by substantial evidence; and second, the trial court’s legal conclusions
are reviewed de novo.” Milam v. Commonwealth, 483 S.W.3d 347, 349 (Ky.
2015). “Substantial evidence is evidence of substance and relevant consequence
having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men.”
Commonwealth v. Jennings, 490 S.W.3d 339, 346 (Ky. 2016) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
On appeal, Sleet concedes the smell of marijuana coming from a
person’s vehicle gives police probable cause to search their vehicle. See Greer v.
-4- Commonwealth, 514 S.W.3d 566, 568 (Ky. App. 2017). His sole argument is that
the trial court erred in finding Officer Wells’ claim that he smelled marijuana
reliable. Sleet contends this finding is not supported by substantial evidence
because no independent evidence supports Officer Wells’ testimony. He again
cites the body cam footage which contains no mention of marijuana, as well as
Officer Johnson’s testimony that Officer Wells never told him he smelled
marijuana prior to the search.3
However, “[t]he trial court is in the best position to judge the
credibility of witnesses and this Court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact
unless there is a clear error or abuse of discretion.” Greene v. Commonwealth, 244
S.W.3d 128, 136 (Ky. App. 2008) (citing Commonwealth v. Whitmore, 92 S.W.3d
76, 79 (Ky. 2002)). The trial court considered Sleet’s arguments, including
questioning why Officer Wells would inquire about a K-9 unit if he already had
probable cause to search based upon the smell of marijuana. But it disagreed with
Sleet that Officer Wells’ failure to confront Sleet about the odor of marijuana
3 On appeal, Sleet also cites an October 20, 2020, newspaper article reporting that Officer Wells recently received a six-week suspension for unsatisfactory performance. Sleet argues the article is further evidence that Officer Wells’ testimony is unreliable. However, we decline to consider this evidence because it was not before the trial court. Further, the newspaper article is inadmissible hearsay. See Bowling v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Government, 172 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Ky. 2005). The article is also of questionable relevance, because Officer Wells was reportedly disciplined for “his overall demeanor, not documenting and investigating incidents appropriately, and not treating detainees according to standards[.]” There were no allegations of falsifying evidence or lying under oath.
-5- proved the claim was a later fabrication. Instead, it reasoned Officer Wells’ silence
was an officer safety consideration aimed at avoiding potential hostility.
The trial court gave more weight to Officer Wells’ word choice in his
citation, noting that if an officer were going to lie about smelling marijuana, they
would likely choose stronger words than “slightly detecting” a “faint odor.” In
sum, the trial court properly weighed the evidence and testimony and found Officer
Wells’ testimony credible. While Sleet argues this finding was clearly erroneous
because no independent evidence corroborates Officer Wells’ claim to smelling
marijuana, our Supreme Court has consistently held that an officer’s testimony
alone is sufficient to meet the substantial evidence standard. See, e.g., Cobb v.
Commonwealth, 509 S.W.3d 705, 708 (Ky. 2017); Williams v.
Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 65 (Ky. 2011); Payton v. Commonwealth, 327
S.W.3d 468 (Ky. 2010). Essentially, Sleet asks us to reweigh the evidence and
overturn the trial court’s credibility determination, but this we cannot do.
Regardless of conflicting evidence, the weight of the evidence, or the fact that the reviewing court would have reached a contrary finding, due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses because judging the credibility of witnesses and weighing evidence are tasks within the exclusive province of the trial court.
Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336, 354 (Ky. 2003) (internal quotation marks and
footnotes omitted).
-6- Finally, Sleet makes a passing challenge to whether Officer Wells was
qualified to detect the odor of marijuana, however, his brief does not state whether
this argument was properly preserved for our review. Further, the argument is not
well developed and contains no citations to pertinent authority as required by our
rules. See CR4 76.12(4)(c)(v). Therefore, we decline to address it.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court is
affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Steven J. Buck Daniel Cameron Frankfort, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Christopher Henry Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky
4 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-7-