RENDERED: AUGUST 30, 2024; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
MODIFIED: OCTOBER 25, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2023-CA-1492-MR
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT
v. APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE WILLIAM ANTHONY KITCHEN, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CR-00532
LEASTON BEASLEY APPELLEE
OPINION REVERSING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; A. JONES AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: The Commonwealth of Kentucky (“the
Commonwealth”) appeals from an order of the McCracken Circuit Court granting
the motion of Leaston Beasley (“Appellee”) to suppress evidence. The
Commonwealth argues that police officers had probable cause to search Appellee’s
vehicle, and that the case law relied on by the circuit court is distinguishable from the instant facts. After careful review, we reverse the order suppressing the
evidence at issue.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At about 4:00 a.m. on June 19, 2023, Paducah police officers Michael
Vowell and Daniel Hunerkoch responded to a report of a vehicle accident in
Paducah, Kentucky. On arriving, the officers observed a vehicle that had traveled
off the roadway and across a ditch, and was positioned next to a fence. Appellee
was found unconscious in the driver’s seat and the vehicle’s engine was still
running.
Officer Hunerkoch looked into the vehicle and observed a clear plastic
bag containing a syringe and a small black bag. He informed Officer Vowell of his
observation and stated his belief that Appellee may have experienced a drug
overdose. Officer Hunerkoch then opened the passenger door and turned off the
vehicle’s engine. The officers woke Appellee, who they suspected of driving
under the influence. Officer Hunerkoch opened the bag next to the hypodermic
needle and observed pills and a white powder, which was later identified as
methamphetamine. He would later testify that the syringe looked old, like the kind
used for injecting illegal drugs. Officer Vowell Mirandized1 Appellee, who
1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
-2- admitted that the substances in the bag were methamphetamine and Clonazepam.
Appellee subsequently was arrested.
Thereafter, Appellee was charged with possession of a controlled
substance in the first degree, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a
controlled substance in the third degree.2 On September 8, 2023, Appellee moved
to suppress the introduction of the syringe, clear plastic bag, small black bag, and
the drugs. In support of the motion, Appellee argued that the officers did not have
probable cause to search the bag containing the methamphetamine and
Clonazepam, nor to seize his possessions.
On December 6, 2023, the circuit court granted Appellee’s motion to
suppress the evidence at issue. Relying on United States v. Morgan, 71 F.4th 540
(6th Cir. 2023), the court concluded that the officers’ entry into Appellee’s vehicle
without first attempting to awaken him violated his 4th Amendment rights. The
court also determined that the plain view exception to the 4th Amendment’s
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply to this case, as
hypodermic needles are not readily incriminating as to contraband being present.
Finally, the court found that a police officer’s “community care taking” or
“watchman’s duty” to provide aid to an incapacitated person as set out in Morgan
did not supplant Appellee’s right to be free of an unreasonable search and seizure.
2 Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) 218A.1415, KRS 218A.500(2), and KRS 218A.1417.
-3- The court suppressed the introduction of the syringe, clear plastic bag, small black
bag, and illegal drugs, and this appeal followed.3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
The Commonwealth argues that the McCracken Circuit Court erred in
granting Appellee’s motion to suppress. In support of this argument, the
Commonwealth asserts that Morgan is not controlling in the instant case because
the facts of Morgan are distinguishable from those herein. The Commonwealth
also argues that because the officers observed a syringe and baggy next to an
unconscious driver in a running vehicle that left the roadway, the officers had
probable cause to search the vehicle. Finally, the Commonwealth argues that the
plain view exception applies. Based on these arguments, the Commonwealth
requests an opinion reversing the order granting Appellee’s motion to suppress.
3 Although an order granting a motion to suppress is interlocutory, KRS 22A.020(4) permits the Commonwealth to appeal from it. Commonwealth v. Norton, 617 S.W.3d 826, 829 (Ky. App. 2021).
-4- In Morgan, at about 5:00 a.m. one morning, the police observed the
defendant – apparently passed out – in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle with the
motor running. The officer did not immediately investigate, as he was about to
assist a different stranded motorist. The officer returned to the defendant’s vehicle
11 minutes later, opened the driver’s door, and asked the driver if he was okay. An
altercation ensued, resulting in an arrest and a search which uncovered a firearm
and drugs. The federal appellate court later ruled that the officer’s failure to shine
his flashlight into the vehicle, to knock on the window, or to otherwise attempt to
wake up the driver before opening the driver’s door constituted an unlawful entry
into the vehicle under those facts.
In the instant matter, the Commonwealth argues that in contrast to the
facts of Morgan, Appellee herein was involved in a motor vehicle accident in
which the vehicle had left the roadway, had crossed a ditch, come to rest against a
fence, and was still in gear. It also points out that whereas no indicia of illegal
activity was observed in Morgan before the officer opened the vehicle’s door,
Officer Hunerkoch observed a clear plastic bag containing a syringe and a small
black bag in Appellee’s vehicle. Hunerkoch later testified that in his experience,
these items are frequently indicative of illegal drug use. Based on the different
facts presented herein, the Commonwealth argues that the reasoning in Morgan is
not applicable.
-5- We first note that Morgan was rendered by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, rather than a Kentucky appellate court. “We, of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RENDERED: AUGUST 30, 2024; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
MODIFIED: OCTOBER 25, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2023-CA-1492-MR
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT
v. APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE WILLIAM ANTHONY KITCHEN, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CR-00532
LEASTON BEASLEY APPELLEE
OPINION REVERSING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; A. JONES AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: The Commonwealth of Kentucky (“the
Commonwealth”) appeals from an order of the McCracken Circuit Court granting
the motion of Leaston Beasley (“Appellee”) to suppress evidence. The
Commonwealth argues that police officers had probable cause to search Appellee’s
vehicle, and that the case law relied on by the circuit court is distinguishable from the instant facts. After careful review, we reverse the order suppressing the
evidence at issue.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At about 4:00 a.m. on June 19, 2023, Paducah police officers Michael
Vowell and Daniel Hunerkoch responded to a report of a vehicle accident in
Paducah, Kentucky. On arriving, the officers observed a vehicle that had traveled
off the roadway and across a ditch, and was positioned next to a fence. Appellee
was found unconscious in the driver’s seat and the vehicle’s engine was still
running.
Officer Hunerkoch looked into the vehicle and observed a clear plastic
bag containing a syringe and a small black bag. He informed Officer Vowell of his
observation and stated his belief that Appellee may have experienced a drug
overdose. Officer Hunerkoch then opened the passenger door and turned off the
vehicle’s engine. The officers woke Appellee, who they suspected of driving
under the influence. Officer Hunerkoch opened the bag next to the hypodermic
needle and observed pills and a white powder, which was later identified as
methamphetamine. He would later testify that the syringe looked old, like the kind
used for injecting illegal drugs. Officer Vowell Mirandized1 Appellee, who
1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
-2- admitted that the substances in the bag were methamphetamine and Clonazepam.
Appellee subsequently was arrested.
Thereafter, Appellee was charged with possession of a controlled
substance in the first degree, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a
controlled substance in the third degree.2 On September 8, 2023, Appellee moved
to suppress the introduction of the syringe, clear plastic bag, small black bag, and
the drugs. In support of the motion, Appellee argued that the officers did not have
probable cause to search the bag containing the methamphetamine and
Clonazepam, nor to seize his possessions.
On December 6, 2023, the circuit court granted Appellee’s motion to
suppress the evidence at issue. Relying on United States v. Morgan, 71 F.4th 540
(6th Cir. 2023), the court concluded that the officers’ entry into Appellee’s vehicle
without first attempting to awaken him violated his 4th Amendment rights. The
court also determined that the plain view exception to the 4th Amendment’s
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply to this case, as
hypodermic needles are not readily incriminating as to contraband being present.
Finally, the court found that a police officer’s “community care taking” or
“watchman’s duty” to provide aid to an incapacitated person as set out in Morgan
did not supplant Appellee’s right to be free of an unreasonable search and seizure.
2 Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) 218A.1415, KRS 218A.500(2), and KRS 218A.1417.
-3- The court suppressed the introduction of the syringe, clear plastic bag, small black
bag, and illegal drugs, and this appeal followed.3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
The Commonwealth argues that the McCracken Circuit Court erred in
granting Appellee’s motion to suppress. In support of this argument, the
Commonwealth asserts that Morgan is not controlling in the instant case because
the facts of Morgan are distinguishable from those herein. The Commonwealth
also argues that because the officers observed a syringe and baggy next to an
unconscious driver in a running vehicle that left the roadway, the officers had
probable cause to search the vehicle. Finally, the Commonwealth argues that the
plain view exception applies. Based on these arguments, the Commonwealth
requests an opinion reversing the order granting Appellee’s motion to suppress.
3 Although an order granting a motion to suppress is interlocutory, KRS 22A.020(4) permits the Commonwealth to appeal from it. Commonwealth v. Norton, 617 S.W.3d 826, 829 (Ky. App. 2021).
-4- In Morgan, at about 5:00 a.m. one morning, the police observed the
defendant – apparently passed out – in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle with the
motor running. The officer did not immediately investigate, as he was about to
assist a different stranded motorist. The officer returned to the defendant’s vehicle
11 minutes later, opened the driver’s door, and asked the driver if he was okay. An
altercation ensued, resulting in an arrest and a search which uncovered a firearm
and drugs. The federal appellate court later ruled that the officer’s failure to shine
his flashlight into the vehicle, to knock on the window, or to otherwise attempt to
wake up the driver before opening the driver’s door constituted an unlawful entry
into the vehicle under those facts.
In the instant matter, the Commonwealth argues that in contrast to the
facts of Morgan, Appellee herein was involved in a motor vehicle accident in
which the vehicle had left the roadway, had crossed a ditch, come to rest against a
fence, and was still in gear. It also points out that whereas no indicia of illegal
activity was observed in Morgan before the officer opened the vehicle’s door,
Officer Hunerkoch observed a clear plastic bag containing a syringe and a small
black bag in Appellee’s vehicle. Hunerkoch later testified that in his experience,
these items are frequently indicative of illegal drug use. Based on the different
facts presented herein, the Commonwealth argues that the reasoning in Morgan is
not applicable.
-5- We first note that Morgan was rendered by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, rather than a Kentucky appellate court. “We, of
course, look to the Sixth Circuit with a great deal of respect, but as the Court of
Appeals noted, we are not bound by Sixth Circuit precedent.” Cook v. Popplewell,
394 S.W.3d 323, 346 (Ky. 2011) (citations omitted). Thus, the reasoning of
Morgan is persuasive in the matter before us, but is not controlling.
Each of the issues raised by the Commonwealth – i.e., the
applicability of Morgan, the presence or absence of probable cause, and the plain
view exception to the prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures – are
fact-dependent analyses. Having closely examined the record and the law, and
with due regard to the persuasive reasoning set out in Morgan, we conclude that
the facts encountered by the Paducah officers gave them probable cause to open
Appellee’s vehicle door and search the clear, plastic baggy containing the syringe
and black bag. The circuit court’s findings of fact are uncontroverted, and because
they are supported by substantial evidence of record must be regarded as
conclusive. Stewart, supra.
“All warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable and
unlawful, requiring the Commonwealth to bear the burden of justifying the search
and seizure under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.” Dunn v.
Commonwealth, 199 S.W.3d 775, 776 (Ky. App. 2006) (internal quotation marks,
-6- footnote, and citation omitted). One such exception is the “automobile exception,
which allows police to search a legitimately stopped automobile where probable
cause exists that contraband or evidence of a crime is in the vehicle.” Id. (internal
quotation marks, footnote, and citation omitted).
Probable cause is found where there exists “a reasonable ground for
belief of guilt,” and such a finding must be based on the totality of the
circumstances. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S. Ct. 795, 800, 157
L. Ed. 2d 769 (2003) (citations omitted). Based on the totality of the
circumstances presented to the officers at the scene of the accident, we believe
there existed a reasonable ground for belief of Appellee’s guilt. The instant facts
amply created probable cause, because a sleeping or unconscious driver found in a
vehicle that left the roadway, crossed a ditch, and came to rest against a fence, in
concert with the officers’ observation in plain view of a syringe and apparent drug
paraphernalia, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminality. These facts are
distinguishable from those of Morgan, wherein there was no vehicle accident and
no observation of a syringe or possible drug paraphhernalia. The facts before us
are sufficient to satisfy Dunn and Pringle. The McCracken Circuit Court erred in
failing to so rule.
-7- CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the McCracken
Circuit Court granting Appellee’s motion to suppress.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Russell Coleman Timothy G. Arnold Attorney General of Kentucky Frankfort, Kentucky
Courtney J. Hightower Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky
-8-