State v. Grassrope

970 N.W.2d 558, 2022 S.D. 10

• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
• Decided: February 9, 2022
• Docket: 29485
• Status: Published

Opinion

#29485-a-PJD 2022 S.D. 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

****

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

DANIEL JAMES GRASSROPE, Defendant and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MINNEHAHA COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

THE HONORABLE ANDREW ROBERTSON Judge

DANIEL HAGGAR DREW DEGROOT NICHOLAUS MICHELS Minnehaha County Deputy State’s Attorneys Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff and appellant.

CHRISTOPHER MILES of Minnehaha County Public Defender’s Office Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant and appellee.

ARGUED OCTOBER 5, 2021 OPINION FILED 02/09/22 #29485

DEVANEY, Justice

[¶1.] The State appeals the magistrate court’s decision granting Daniel

Grassrope’s motion to suppress, asserting that the magistrate court erred in

determining that the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment did

not apply.

Factual and Procedural Background

[¶2.] In the early morning of March 7, 2020, Sioux Falls dispatch received a

call from a six-year-old boy. In the initial call, the child gave the phone to his

mother, and when dispatch asked the mother if there was an emergency, she hung

up the phone. When dispatch called back, the child answered and said that “daddy

was being mean to mom.” The child also informed dispatch that his dad was

leaving to go to his car. Dispatch relayed the information shortly thereafter to

Officer Conley at 2:46 a.m.

[¶3.] Officer Conley, believing a domestic dispute might be occurring,

responded to the apartment building from which the call had been placed. On his

way to the apartment, dispatch further advised that according to the child, “dad

was talking back and mom didn’t like it.” Officer Conley arrived at the apartment

building at 2:48 a.m. and saw a tan Chevy Malibu leaving the parking lot. At this

time, he had not yet received information describing the father’s car. Officer Conley

testified that he decided to follow the Malibu because he had very limited

information and was not sure if the driver was a victim or the suspect, or if someone

had been hurt.

-1- #29485

[¶4.] Shortly thereafter, dispatch provided an update stating that the

father’s automobile was silver. Officer Conley initiated a traffic stop at 2:49 a.m.,

and Daniel Grassrope was the only person in the automobile. Officer Conley

testified that while speaking to Grassrope, he immediately detected a strong odor of

intoxicants. After further investigation, he placed Grassrope under arrest for

driving under the influence (DUI) and driving with a suspended license.

[¶5.] Before trial, Grassrope filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained

during the stop. Grassrope claimed that Officer Conley violated his Fourth

Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure by stopping his

automobile without probable cause or a reasonable and articulable suspicion. In

response, the State asserted that Officer Conley had an objectively reasonable

suspicion that Grassrope had engaged in criminal activity, but the State primarily

argued that Officer Conley’s actions were lawful under the community caretaker

doctrine.

[¶6.] The magistrate court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law

granting Grassrope’s motion to suppress. The magistrate court found that Officer

Conley did not observe any traffic violations and that his decision to stop

Grassrope’s vehicle was based solely on the information provided by dispatch

regarding a family dispute. The court further found that the information from

dispatch did not indicate that a crime had been committed, there had been no

request for help, and there was no indication that the mother or child had left the

apartment. Instead, the child reported that the father had left. The magistrate

-2- #29485

court therefore concluded that the community caretaker exception did not apply. 1

The State appeals the magistrate court’s order granting Grassrope’s motion to

suppress, alleging the court erred in determining that the community caretaker

exception did not apply to the circumstances surrounding Officer Conley’s stop.

Standard of Review

[¶7.] “We review the [magistrate] court’s grant or denial of a motion to

suppress involving an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right under

the de novo standard of review.” State v. Short Bull, 2019 S.D. 28, ¶ 10, 928 N.W.2d

473, 476 (quoting State v. Kleven, 2016 S.D. 80, ¶ 7, 887 N.W.2d 740, 742). “The

court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, but we

give no deference to the court’s conclusions of law.” State v. Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12, ¶

10, 875 N.W.2d 40, 44 (quoting State v. Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 12, 853 N.W.2d 235,

239). “[O]nce those facts have been determined, ‘the application of a legal standard

to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.’” State v. Heney, 2013 S.D. 77,

¶ 8, 839 N.W.2d 558, 561–62 (quoting State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60, ¶ 9, 680 N.W.2d

314, 319). “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to

support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum

1. It appears from the magistrate court’s comments during its oral ruling and from some of the court’s written factual findings that the court also rejected the State’s alternative argument that Officer Conley had reasonable suspicion to believe the driver of the vehicle had engaged in criminal activity. However, the court did not enter a written conclusion stating that the evidence did not meet the reasonable suspicion standard to justify the stop of Grassrope’s vehicle to further investigate a crime. In any event, the State is not pursuing this alternative argument on appeal.

-3- #29485

Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 542, 92 L. Ed. 746 (1948) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

Analysis and Decision

[¶8.] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article

VI, section 11, of the South Dakota Constitution guarantee a person’s right to be

free from unreasonable searches and seizures. “[T]he Fourth Amendment’s textual

reference to the issuance of ‘[w]arrants’ has been interpreted to state a general

principle that police officers ‘must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial

approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure[.]’” State v.

Schumacher, 2021 S.D. 16, ¶ 20, 956 N.W.2d 427, 432 (quoting Short Bull, 2019

S.D. 28, ¶ 11, 928 N.W.2d at 476). However, courts have long recognized certain

exceptions to the warrant requirement. “[A] warrant is not required to effect a

temporary seizure of a vehicle by means of a traffic stop.” Short Bull, 2019 S.D. 28,

¶ 12, 928 N.W.2d at 476 (citing State v. Bowers, 2018 S.D. 50, ¶ 10, 915 N.W.2d 161,

164). A police officer need only have “a reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle.” Id.

(quoting State v. Chavez, 2003 S.D. 93, ¶ 15, 668 N.W.2d 89, 95). “While the stop

may not be the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity, it is enough that the

stop is based upon ‘specific and articulable facts, which taken together with rational

inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion.’” Id. (quoting

Chavez, 2003 S.D. 93, ¶ 16, 668 N.W.2d at 95). The State carries the burden to

prove that the search or seizure falls within an exception to the warrant

requirement. State v. Edwards, 2014 S.D. 63, ¶ 12, 853 N.W.2d 246, 251 (citing

Hess, 2004 S.D. 60, ¶ 23, 680 N.W.2d at 324).

-4- #29485

[¶9.] We have recognized that the “specific and articulable facts standard

. . . has not been exclusively connected with the detection of criminal activity.”

Short Bull, 2019 S.D. 28, ¶ 13, 928 N.W.2d at 476. We have likewise applied this

standard when police officers act as community caretakers, noting that “[f]rom first

responders to the sick and injured, to interveners in domestic disputes, and myriad

instances too numerous to list, police officers fulfill a vital role where no other

government official can.” Id. ¶ 14, 928 N.W.2d at 477 (quoting State v. Deneui, 2009

S.D. 99, ¶ 49, 775 N.W.2d 221, 242). Our prior cases applying what came to be

known as the “community caretaker exception” stem from the United States

Supreme Court’s recognition that local law enforcement officers often “engage in

what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking

functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of

evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Cady v. Dombrowski, 413

U.S. 433, 441, 93 S. Ct. 2523, 2528, 37 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1973) (determining that a

warrantless search for a firearm believed to be in a disabled vehicle that had been

towed from a public highway after an accident did not violate the Fourth

Amendment).

[¶10.] We first applied the community caretaker exception in State v.

Rinehart and acknowledged that law enforcement officers, under appropriate

circumstances, “may be justified in stopping a vehicle to provide assistance, without

needing any reasonable basis to suspect criminal activity.” 2000 S.D. 135, ¶ 7, 617

N.W.2d 842, 843 (citation omitted). However, we recognized that the exception

should be applied “cautiously and narrowly” to avoid the risk of abuse or the use of

-5- #29485

the exception “as a pretext for conducting an investigatory search for criminal

evidence.” Id. ¶ 10, 617 N.W.2d at 844 (quoting Commonwealth v. Waters, 456

S.E.2d 527, 530 (Va. Ct. App. 1995)). Thus far, we have applied the community

caretaker exception in three instances involving the warrantless search or

temporary seizure of an automobile.

[¶11.] In Rinehart, we held that a law enforcement officer, acting in his role

as a community caretaker, was authorized to stop an automobile after he observed

the vehicle traveling at an “excessively slow speed” and believed it was being driven

by someone experiencing either a “medical emergency or automotive malfunction[.]”

Id. ¶¶ 8–9, 617 N.W.2d at 844. We concluded, based on the circumstances of the

case, that the officer was justified “in stopping Rinehart to make sure everything

was all right.” Id. ¶ 11, 617 N.W.2d at 844.

[¶12.] We have also held a police officer’s actions were justified under the

community caretaker exception when the officer knocked on the driver’s window of

an automobile that had been parked at the same location with the engine running

for an extended period of time during the early morning hours and the driver

appeared to either be sleeping or passed out. Kleven, 2016 S.D. 80, ¶ 12, 887

N.W.2d 740, 743. We determined that the officer had “sufficient reasons to act”

under the circumstances. Id.

[¶13.] Finally, in Short Bull, we concluded an officer had reasonable facts to

initiate a stop of a vehicle suspected to be occupied by the victim of a possible

domestic disturbance. 2019 S.D. 28, ¶ 21, 928 N.W.2d at 478. While the facts in

Short Bull have some similarities to the facts underlying the stop of Grassrope’s

-6- #29485

vehicle, there are notable distinctions that bear directly upon the dichotomy

between police officers’ caretaking and law enforcement roles. In Short Bull, at

approximately 3:00 a.m., a hotel night clerk called dispatch and reported that she

had received a call from a female patron asking for help. Id. ¶ 2, 928 N.W.2d at

474. Shortly after the initial call, the clerk spoke to dispatch again, reporting that

the female patron was in the lobby. According to the clerk, the female had

confirmed she was involved in a domestic dispute and that the male was still in the

hotel room. The woman then left the hotel. Id. An officer responded to the call,

and upon arrival at the hotel, dispatch advised that the female was in the parking

lot but did not provide a description of the vehicle or a direction of travel. Id. ¶ 3,

928 N.W.2d at 474. The officer did not see any pedestrians or traffic movement in

front of the hotel, but as he pulled around to the rear parking lot, he saw a black

SUV leaving the lot and activated his lights and siren to stop the vehicle. Id.

Under the circumstances, the Court concluded that the officer’s actions fell within

the community caretaker exception because he had reasonable and articulable facts

to initiate the stop. 2

2. Although, since Rinehart, we have applied the community caretaker exception in circumstances involving warrantless entries of both vehicles and residences, we recently noted in Boggs v. Pearson, 2021 S.D. 44, ¶ 25, 963 N.W.2d 304, 312–13, that the United States Supreme Court has now clarified that its previous acknowledgement of law enforcement’s caretaking duties did not create “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.” Caniglia v. Strom, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 1598, 209 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2021) (emphasis added). The United States Supreme Court nevertheless reaffirmed its existing precedent recognizing that law enforcement may enter private property “when certain exigent circumstances exist, including the need to ‘render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.’” Id. at ___, 141 S. (continued . . .) -7- #29485

[¶14.] Here, however, Officer Conley never received information suggesting

that a person in need of aid was leaving the apartment. The only information he

possessed was the child’s report that his father was “being mean” to his mother and

“talking back” to her and that his father had gone to his car. Even if the

information from dispatch would have supported a decision to seek entrance to the

caller’s apartment to ensure that everyone was safe, there was no additional

caretaking concern that justified a stop of the father’s vehicle as it was driving

away. Officer Conley’s claim that he was concerned the driver of the vehicle leaving

the apartment might have been the victim of a domestic assault is not supported by

the reported information. As a result, Officer Conley could not articulate specific

facts to support his contention that he stopped Grassrope’s vehicle in the exercise of

his community caretaking role.

[¶15.] We acknowledge that officers responding to reports of domestic

disturbances must often make on-the-spot, difficult decisions regarding how to

ensure the safety of persons involved. But when relying upon the community

caretaking exception to justify a warrantless search or seizure, they must

nevertheless operate within the bounds of our existing precedent directing that this

exception be applied cautiously and narrowly. Applying this directive here, Officer

________________________ (. . . continued) Ct. at 1599 (quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460, 470, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1856, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011)). Three separate concurring opinions in Caniglia emphasized that the principles underlying Cady’s recognition of law enforcement’s community caretaking functions are still sound. Id. ___, 141 S. Ct. at 1600–04.

-8- #29485

Conley’s actions were beyond the scope of a community caretaker. Therefore, the

magistrate court properly granted Grassrope’s motion to suppress.

[¶16.] Affirmed.

[¶17.] JENSEN, Chief Justice, and KERN, SALTER, and MYREN, Justices,

concur.

-9-