RENDERED: OCTOBER 25, 2024; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2023-CA-1415-MR
ERIC LAMONT ADAMS APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE THOMAS L. TRAVIS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CR-00978
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND CALDWELL, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Eric Lamont Adams appeals from an order
denying his motion to suppress. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 1, 2022, at 9:53 p.m., Officer Daniel Hempel of the
Lexington Police Department initiated a traffic stop after witnessing Appellant
enter into the wrong lane of traffic to pass multiple vehicles stopped at a stop sign.
After seeing Officer Hempel’s emergency lights, Appellant pulled over into a parking lot. He then exited his vehicle with his hands raised. Officer Hempel gave
Appellant multiple orders to get back into his vehicle, but Appellant did not.
Officer Hempel approached Appellant, patted him down for weapons, and took
him to the front of the police cruiser. Officer Hempel also called for backup,
which arrived three minutes after the traffic stop began.
Once backup had arrived, Officer Hempel got into his vehicle and
began the usual traffic stop checks on the vehicle and Appellant. Officer Hempel
was informed that Appellant had active arrest warrants. Officer Hempel then
requested a confirmation of the warrants from dispatch. He also requested a drug
dog come and perform a check around the vehicle. The dog arrived at 10:10 p.m.
and began its check around the exterior of the vehicle. While the dog was
performing the search, dispatch confirmed the warrants were valid. Also during
the dog’s search, Officer Hempel was in his vehicle completing the traffic stop
paperwork.
The dog ultimately alerted to the vehicle. At that time, Appellant
informed the officers that there was a handgun1 in the car. The officers searched
the car and found the gun. Officers also found a small amount of marijuana
residue in the car, but Appellant was not charged with any crime related to it.
1 The gun was later determined to have been stolen.
-2- Appellant was arrested and charged with improper passing,2 operating
a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license,3 being a convicted felon in
possession of a handgun,4 and receiving stolen property.5 Appellant later moved to
suppress the search of the car, arguing that the drug dog’s search around the
exterior of the car impermissibly extended the length of the stop. After a hearing
in which Officer Hempel testified, the trial court denied the motion. Appellant
later entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal the suppression
issue. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
A trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed under a two-prong test. First, we review the trial court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Under this standard, the trial court’s findings of fact will be conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. Second, we review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to the facts.
Rhoton v. Commonwealth, 610 S.W.3d 273, 275-76 (Ky. 2020) (footnotes and
citations omitted).
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
2 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 189.340. 3 KRS 186.620(2). 4 KRS 527.040. 5 KRS 514.110.
-3- intrusive in that the officer’s actions must be reasonably related in scope to circumstances justifying the initial interference. 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. If the traffic stop is prolonged beyond the time required for the purpose of the stop, the subsequent discovery of contraband is the product of an unconstitutional seizure.
Davis v. Commonwealth, 484 S.W.3d 288, 292 (Ky. 2016) (internal quotation
marks, footnotes, and citations omitted).
An officer’s ordinary inquiries incident to a traffic stop do not impermissibly extend such stop. Included in such ordinary inquiries are an officer’s review of the driver’s information, auto insurance and registration, and the performance of criminal background checks of the driver and any passengers. In order to extend the stop beyond that required to complete its initial purpose, something must occur during the stop to create a “reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”
Rhoton, 610 S.W.3d at 276 (footnotes and citations omitted).
On appeal, Appellant argues that the length of the traffic stop was
impermissibly prolonged when Officer Hempel patted Appellant down for
weapons at the beginning of the stop. As the Commonwealth correctly points out,
this issue is not preserved because it was not raised before the trial court. The only
argument about the alleged prolonging of the stop was regarding the police dog.
The dog search was also the only issue addressed by the trial court. “The Court of
-4- Appeals is without authority to review issues not raised in or decided by the trial
court.” Regional Jail Authority v. Tackett, 770 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky. 1989); see
also Shelton v. Commonwealth, 928 S.W.2d 817, 818 (Ky. App. 1996). “[E]rrors
to be considered for appellate review must be precisely preserved and identified in
the lower court.” Skaggs v. Assad, by and through Assad, 712 S.W.2d 947, 950
(Ky. 1986) (citation omitted).
Even if this issue had been properly preserved, we would conclude
that this minimal extension of the stop was reasonable. “[O]fficers performing a
traffic stop are ‘authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to
protect their personal safety and to maintain their status quo.’ United States v.
Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235, 105 S. Ct. 675, 83 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1985).” Carlisle v.
Commonwealth, 601 S.W.3d 168, 179 (Ky. 2020). “Traffic stops are especially
fraught with danger to police officers, so an officer may need to take certain
negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete his mission safely.”
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 356, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1616, 191 L. Ed.
2d 492 (2015) (citations omitted). Here, Appellant exited his car without
permission from the officer and refused orders to get back into the vehicle. Officer
Hempel’s pat down of Appellant was reasonable under the circumstances.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RENDERED: OCTOBER 25, 2024; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2023-CA-1415-MR
ERIC LAMONT ADAMS APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE THOMAS L. TRAVIS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CR-00978
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND CALDWELL, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Eric Lamont Adams appeals from an order
denying his motion to suppress. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 1, 2022, at 9:53 p.m., Officer Daniel Hempel of the
Lexington Police Department initiated a traffic stop after witnessing Appellant
enter into the wrong lane of traffic to pass multiple vehicles stopped at a stop sign.
After seeing Officer Hempel’s emergency lights, Appellant pulled over into a parking lot. He then exited his vehicle with his hands raised. Officer Hempel gave
Appellant multiple orders to get back into his vehicle, but Appellant did not.
Officer Hempel approached Appellant, patted him down for weapons, and took
him to the front of the police cruiser. Officer Hempel also called for backup,
which arrived three minutes after the traffic stop began.
Once backup had arrived, Officer Hempel got into his vehicle and
began the usual traffic stop checks on the vehicle and Appellant. Officer Hempel
was informed that Appellant had active arrest warrants. Officer Hempel then
requested a confirmation of the warrants from dispatch. He also requested a drug
dog come and perform a check around the vehicle. The dog arrived at 10:10 p.m.
and began its check around the exterior of the vehicle. While the dog was
performing the search, dispatch confirmed the warrants were valid. Also during
the dog’s search, Officer Hempel was in his vehicle completing the traffic stop
paperwork.
The dog ultimately alerted to the vehicle. At that time, Appellant
informed the officers that there was a handgun1 in the car. The officers searched
the car and found the gun. Officers also found a small amount of marijuana
residue in the car, but Appellant was not charged with any crime related to it.
1 The gun was later determined to have been stolen.
-2- Appellant was arrested and charged with improper passing,2 operating
a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license,3 being a convicted felon in
possession of a handgun,4 and receiving stolen property.5 Appellant later moved to
suppress the search of the car, arguing that the drug dog’s search around the
exterior of the car impermissibly extended the length of the stop. After a hearing
in which Officer Hempel testified, the trial court denied the motion. Appellant
later entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal the suppression
issue. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
A trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed under a two-prong test. First, we review the trial court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Under this standard, the trial court’s findings of fact will be conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. Second, we review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to the facts.
Rhoton v. Commonwealth, 610 S.W.3d 273, 275-76 (Ky. 2020) (footnotes and
citations omitted).
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
2 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 189.340. 3 KRS 186.620(2). 4 KRS 527.040. 5 KRS 514.110.
-3- intrusive in that the officer’s actions must be reasonably related in scope to circumstances justifying the initial interference. 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. If the traffic stop is prolonged beyond the time required for the purpose of the stop, the subsequent discovery of contraband is the product of an unconstitutional seizure.
Davis v. Commonwealth, 484 S.W.3d 288, 292 (Ky. 2016) (internal quotation
marks, footnotes, and citations omitted).
An officer’s ordinary inquiries incident to a traffic stop do not impermissibly extend such stop. Included in such ordinary inquiries are an officer’s review of the driver’s information, auto insurance and registration, and the performance of criminal background checks of the driver and any passengers. In order to extend the stop beyond that required to complete its initial purpose, something must occur during the stop to create a “reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”
Rhoton, 610 S.W.3d at 276 (footnotes and citations omitted).
On appeal, Appellant argues that the length of the traffic stop was
impermissibly prolonged when Officer Hempel patted Appellant down for
weapons at the beginning of the stop. As the Commonwealth correctly points out,
this issue is not preserved because it was not raised before the trial court. The only
argument about the alleged prolonging of the stop was regarding the police dog.
The dog search was also the only issue addressed by the trial court. “The Court of
-4- Appeals is without authority to review issues not raised in or decided by the trial
court.” Regional Jail Authority v. Tackett, 770 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky. 1989); see
also Shelton v. Commonwealth, 928 S.W.2d 817, 818 (Ky. App. 1996). “[E]rrors
to be considered for appellate review must be precisely preserved and identified in
the lower court.” Skaggs v. Assad, by and through Assad, 712 S.W.2d 947, 950
(Ky. 1986) (citation omitted).
Even if this issue had been properly preserved, we would conclude
that this minimal extension of the stop was reasonable. “[O]fficers performing a
traffic stop are ‘authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to
protect their personal safety and to maintain their status quo.’ United States v.
Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235, 105 S. Ct. 675, 83 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1985).” Carlisle v.
Commonwealth, 601 S.W.3d 168, 179 (Ky. 2020). “Traffic stops are especially
fraught with danger to police officers, so an officer may need to take certain
negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete his mission safely.”
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 356, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1616, 191 L. Ed.
2d 492 (2015) (citations omitted). Here, Appellant exited his car without
permission from the officer and refused orders to get back into the vehicle. Officer
Hempel’s pat down of Appellant was reasonable under the circumstances.
Appellant’s brief does not make an argument about the dog search of
the vehicle; however, we will note that the dog’s presence did not impermissibly
-5- extend the stop. “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.” Davis, 484 S.W.3d at 292
(citation omitted). The evidence in the record indicates that Officer Hempel was
inside his vehicle and diligently filling out the traffic stop paperwork when the
police dog arrived and conducted the sniff search.6 Considering the dog’s search
happened simultaneously while Officer Hempel was working on the traffic stop
citation, we conclude there was no unlawful extension of the stop. Furthermore,
the case of Rhoton, supra, holds that the “discovery of an outstanding warrant as
part of a traffic stop provides new probable cause for the resulting increased
duration of such stop.” Rhoton, 610 S.W.3d at 279. The confirmation of the
validity of the warrants occurred during the dog’s search; therefore, any extension
of the traffic stop from that point forward was justified based on the warrants.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. The
motion to suppress was properly denied in this case because the traffic stop was
not impermissibly extended.
6 The Commonwealth introduced into evidence Officer Hempel’s body camera recording of the stop and it shows Officer Hempel in the car working on the citation during the dog’s sniff search.
-6- ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Erin Hoffman Yang Russell Coleman Frankfort, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Courtney J. Hightower Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky
-7-