State of Missouri v. Chad Thomas

• Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
• Decided: November 5, 2024
• Docket: SC100469
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Opinion issued November 5, 2024 ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) No. SC100469 ) CHAD J. THOMAS, ) ) Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SALINE COUNTY The Honorable Dennis Allen Rolf, Judge

Chad Thomas appeals the circuit court’s judgment convicting him of possession of

a controlled substance, section 579.015, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia,

section 579.074. 1 He argues the court erred in overruling his motion to suppress

evidence that was discovered during a traffic stop. He contends the evidence was the

result of an unlawful search because the officer extended the traffic stop without

reasonable suspicion to do so. Because the totality of the circumstances surrounding the

officer’s encounter with Thomas gave the officer reasonable suspicion to continue to

detain Thomas, this Court affirms the circuit court’s judgment.

1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2016. Background

In the early morning hours of a winter day, a police officer pulled Thomas over for

driving with a broken headlight. The officer walked up to the passenger side of

Thomas’s vehicle and asked him to roll down his window. Thomas first rolled down the

rear passenger window. When asked to roll down the front passenger window, Thomas

rolled it down a few inches. The officer explained the reason for the stop and asked

Thomas for his driver’s license. Thomas began to search for his license in his wallet but

said he could not find it. The officer then asked Thomas to exit the vehicle. After

Thomas complied, the officer asked his permission to conduct a pat-down search.

Thomas consented. As he patted down Thomas’s pockets, the officer felt a bulge and

asked Thomas what it was. Thomas responded that he was not sure, but it might be a

“sharp.” 2 Thomas then stated he sometimes carries a knife. The officer called for backup

and asked multiple times if he could reach into Thomas’ pocket and retrieve the object.

Thomas first declined but later consented, allowing the officer to look into his pocket.

The officer confirmed the bulge was a key fob in Thomas’ pocket.

The officer asked Thomas to come back to his patrol vehicle and sit in the

passenger seat, but Thomas refused. During this exchange, the officer noticed Thomas

was speaking rapidly and sweating even though it was cold outside, he was sweating. He

told Thomas he seemed overly nervous and was talking very fast as Thomas continued to

search for his driver’s license. Thomas told the officer his driver’s license was in the

2 The officer explained, due to his training and experience, he knew a “sharp” to be a hypodermic needle. 2 vehicle. The officer allowed Thomas to go back into his vehicle to retrieve it. While

Thomas was opening his door, he explained he did not feel safe sitting in the officer’s

vehicle because he previously had been beaten up by police.

As Thomas sat back in his driver’s seat, he put his hand up and said “excuse me,”

attempting to close the door. The officer ordered Thomas out of the vehicle and told

Thomas he had allowed him to go back into the vehicle only to retrieve his license, not

wanting him to close the door. Thomas then reached over toward the center console.

With this movement, Thomas blocked the officer’s vision of the center console, where

Thomas was placing his hands. This also prevented the officer from seeing what he was

reaching for. The officer then grabbed Thomas’ shoulder and wrist, instructed him to get

out of the vehicle, placed him in handcuffs, and escorted him back to his patrol vehicle.

Thomas’ driver side door was left open. Thomas asked the officer if he was being

arrested. The officer explained he was not being arrested; rather, he was being detained

for a traffic violation. The officer later described Thomas’ demeanor as extremely

nervous during this exchange. Another officer who had just arrived at the scene

described Thomas as excited and angry as he was handcuffed, yelling at the officer.

After Thomas was escorted to the officer’s vehicle and placed in the passenger

seat, the officer briefed other police officers who had arrived on the scene regarding what

had happened. At this point, a second officer spoke with Thomas, asking to search the

center console of Thomas’ vehicle for his driver’s license. Thomas first gave his consent

but then immediately retracted it. The officer who had stopped Thomas asked if there

were any illegal items in the vehicle. Thomas replied there were none. The officer

3 verified Thomas was denying consent for officers to search his vehicle and called for the

canine unit. As he waited for confirmation from the canine unit, the officer obtained

Thomas’ name and date of birth. He then provided this information over the radio for a

license and warrant check.

The officer exited the vehicle and began speaking with the other police officers at

the scene. During this conversation, the dispatcher confirmed Thomas’ identity and

stated he had an active warrant. The officer sought confirmation of the warrant. He told

other officers at the scene he could write Thomas a citation for operating a vehicle

without a driver’s license. Other officers said he should not start writing any citations

until he received confirmation of the warrant and, by that time, the canine unit would be

at the scene. The officer continued to speak with other officers until the dispatcher

confirmed there was an active warrant for Thomas, but it was non-extraditable.

After receiving this confirmation, the officer returned to his vehicle and began

writing a citation for operating a vehicle without a driver’s license. Meanwhile, the

canine unit arrived on the scene. The officer stopped writing the citation, got out of his

patrol vehicle, and briefed the canine unit officer. The canine unit officer then deployed

his canine to do an air sniff of Thomas’ vehicle. The canine alerted and jumped into the

open door of the driver’s seat as the officer finished writing the citation. Due to the alert,

the officer searched the vehicle, finding in the center console a smoking glass pipe and a

brown drip bottle with a clear substance inside of it. The officer also found a hypodermic

needle with a red liquid substance in the pocket of the driver’s side door. The drip bottle

4 and hypodermic needle later tested positive for methamphetamine. The officer

completed writing the citation for operating a vehicle without a driver’s license.

The state also charged Thomas with possession of a controlled substance under

section 579.015 and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia under section 579.074.

Thomas filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence the officer found in his vehicle as

the fruit of an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States

Constitution and article I, section 15 of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court held

a hearing at which the arresting officer and two other officers at the scene testified

regarding the traffic stop, their detainment of Thomas, and the actions of the canine unit.

The circuit court overruled Thomas’ motion to suppress, finding the officer did not

wrongfully extend the traffic stop. The court reasoned any extension was caused by

Thomas’ uncooperative and argumentative actions, Thomas’ search for his license, the

officer’s need to verify information regarding the outstanding warrant for Thomas, and

the officer’s need to gather information about Thomas to complete the traffic citation

because Thomas was unable to provide his license. The court further found that, even if

it was necessary to extend the detention, the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain

Thomas while the canine unit completed the sniff due to the original officer’s

conversation with and observations of Thomas during the traffic stop. The circuit court

found the discovery of the methamphetamine was not the result of an illegal search.

At a jury trial, the circuit court granted Thomas a standing objection to the

admission of the evidence seized during the search based on his argument that the police

unlawfully extended the stop and did not have reasonable suspicion for such an

5 extension. The jury found Thomas guilty of possession of a controlled substance and

unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and the circuit court sentenced him to 10

years imprisonment for possession as a prior offender.

After decision by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const. art

V, sec. 10.

Standard of Review

“A [circuit] court’s ruling on a motion to suppress will be reversed only if it is

clearly erroneous.” State v. Barton, 669 S.W.3d 661, 664 (Mo. banc 2023) (quotations

omitted). This Court will hold a circuit court’s decision clearly erroneous when there is a

definite and firm impression that the circuit court made a mistake. Id. In reviewing the

circuit court’s record, this Court will defer to its factual findings and credibility

determinations. Id. All evidence and reasonable inferences are reviewed in the light

most favorable to the circuit court’s ruling. Id. Whether the Fourth Amendment has

been violated is an issue of law that is reviewed de novo. Id.

Analysis

The issue to be decided in this case is whether the traffic stop violated Thomas’

Fourth Amendment rights. 3 The Fourth Amendment guarantees individuals protection

3 Thomas’ point relied on also alleges violations of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as violations of article I, sections 10, 15, and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution. In his argument, however, Thomas does not discuss these rights or how they were violated. “An appellant is required to develop the issue[s] raised in its point relied on in the argument portion of the brief.” Smith v. Med Plus Healthcare, 401 S.W.3d 573, 575-76 (Mo. App. 2013). Because Thomas failed to elaborate on these allegations, they are not preserved for appellate review. State v. Edmond, 675 S.W.3d 235, 243 (Mo. App. 2023). 6 from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. A routine traffic stop

is a reasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Sund, 215 S.W.3d 719,

723 (Mo. banc 2007). “[S]o long as the police are doing no more than they are legally

permitted and objectively authorized to do, [the resulting stop or] arrest is constitutional.”

State v. Barks, 128 S.W.3d 513, 516 (Mo. banc 2004) (alterations in original) (quotations

omitted).

In assessing whether an officer is objectively authorized to act in a particular

manner during a traffic stop, a court looks to the purpose of the traffic stop, most often

the underlying traffic violation. State v. Granado, 148 S.W.3d 309, 311 (Mo. banc

2004). The officer may detain an individual only for the time necessary to “conduct a

reasonable investigation of the traffic violation.” Barks, 128 S.W.3d at 516. When an

officer prolongs the stop more than is reasonably necessary to complete the stop’s

purpose, the officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot to detain the

individual. Granado, 148 S.W.3d at 311. If the officer does not have reasonable

suspicion when he extends the stop, the stop may become unlawful. State v. Grayson,

336 S.W.3d 138, 145-46 (Mo. banc 2011). Evidence obtained after the stop becomes

unlawful is generally inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. 4 State v. Norfolk, 366

S.W.3d 528, 531 (Mo. banc 2012).

4 The exclusionary rule renders inadmissible any evidence obtained in violation of the defendant’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Norfolk, 366 S.W.3d at 531 (citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961)). 7 The officer had reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot, allowing him to lawfully detain Thomas

Thomas argues the officer unreasonably extended the traffic stop without

reasonable suspicion to do so to allow the canine unit to arrive. Under the totality of the

circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion there was additional criminal activity

beyond the initial traffic violation, warranting the extension and canine sniff.

An officer can lawfully detain an individual beyond the time necessary to

investigate the traffic violation “if the officer develops reasonable and articulable grounds

for suspicion of illegal activity based on the behavior and responses of the individual

during the traffic stop.” Id. (quotations omitted). The totality of the circumstances is

considered when evaluating whether the standard for reasonable suspicion has been met.

Id. Whether an officer had reasonable suspicion is determined objectively through

consideration of whether there was unusual conduct that reasonably led the officer to

believe, in light of his experience, that criminal activity might have been afoot. State v.

Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668, 673 (Mo. banc 2011). Actions that alone are consistent with

innocent conduct, may, when considered together, amount to reasonable suspicion. State

v. Kempa, 235 S.W.3d 54, 62 (Mo. App. 2007). Further, unless an officer has reasonable

suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, the officer cannot prolong a traffic stop past the

time reasonably necessary to complete the stop to conduct an unrelated canine search.

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 357-58 (2015). But canine air sniffs are

8 constitutional, even if unrelated to the purpose of the search, when completed during the

underlying traffic stop. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005).

Based on Thomas’s behavior and responses during the traffic stop, the officer

developed a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may have been afoot. After being

pulled over, Thomas first rolled down his rear window. When asked to roll down his

front window, Thomas rolled it down only a few inches. The officer testified this

behavior was odd, as most people roll down their window fully when being pulled over,

even when it is cold outside. When the officer asked Thomas for his driver’s license,

Thomas was unable to locate it but continued to shuffle through his wallet several times

even though it was clear it was not present. When the officer conducted a pat-down

search and felt a bulge, Thomas stated the object might be a “sharp,” a term the officer

understood to mean a hypodermic needle associated with drug use. After the officer gave

Thomas permission to find his license in the center console, Thomas sat in the driver’s

seat and attempted to close the vehicle door between him and the officer. When the

officer prevented him from doing so and told Thomas he had not given him permission to

sit in the car, Thomas used his body to block the officer’s vision of his hands as he

reached into the center console. When the officer pulled Thomas out of the vehicle,

Thomas lied, stating he had grabbed his driver’s license. He was actually holding a debit

or credit card he had showed the officer earlier during the stop. After the officer

explained why he had pulled Thomas out of the vehicle, Thomas again lied, stating “I

grabbed my ID.” Throughout the exchange, Thomas was visibly nervous, speaking

9 quickly, and sweating even though it was a cold winter day. Only after these events

transpired did the officer call for the canine unit.

Although Thomas argues any one of these facts taken alone does not create

reasonable suspicion, considered as a whole, these specific, articulable findings of facts,

viewed in the light most favorable to the circuit court’s ruling, demonstrate an objectively

reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. As the officer had reasonable

suspicion that Thomas was engaged in criminal activity, he could lawfully detain Thomas

to investigate that reasonable suspicion, summoning the canine unit and allowing the

canine unit to conduct a sniff test. The detention was swift, lasting less than 30 minutes

from the beginning of the stop to the canine alert and subsequent search of the vehicle,

and within the time necessary to investigate the officer’s reasonable suspicion. The

circuit court did not clearly err in finding the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain

Thomas and his acts did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Conclusion

The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.

______________________________ Mary R. Russell, Judge

All concur.