Title: Whitlow v. Commonwealth

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

RENDERED: JUNE 13, 2019 TO BE PUBLISHED 2018-SC-000188-MR SUZANNE MARIE WHITLOW APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE KIMBERLY N. BUNNELL, JUDGE NO. 17-CR-00146 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE HUGHES AFFIRMING Suzanne Marie Whit lo w appeals as a mat t er o f right fro m t he Fayet t e Circuit Co urt judgment sent encing her t o t went y years in priso n. Whit lo w was driving while int o xicat ed in Lexingt o n, Kent ucky, when she st ruck and killed t wo pedest rians st anding o n a sidewalk. Aft er t he incident , Whit lo w was t ranspo rt ed t o t he ho spit al fo r mino r injuries, and a po lice o fficer o bt ained a co urt o rder direct ing t he ho spit al t o t est her blo o d fo r drugs and alco ho l. Whit lo w mo ved t o suppress t he blo o d t est result s, arguing t hat t he “co urt o rder” was no t a search warrant and t herefo re t he t est ing vio lat ed her Fo urt h Amendment right s. The t rial co urt denied her mo t io n, and Whit lo w ent ered a co ndit io nal guilt y plea t o fo ur charges, including t wo co unt s o f seco nd-degree manslaught er, specifically preserving her right t o appeal t he denial o f t he suppressio n mo t io n. Finding no erro r, we affirm t he ruling o f t he t rial co urt . FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In t he early mo rning ho urs o f Oct o ber 29, 2016, Whit lo w o perat ed a black Do dge vehicle which left t he ro adway and dro ve o nt o a cit y sidewalk, st riking and killing a Lo uisville po lice o fficer and a Universit y o f Kent ucky emplo yee. Aft er t he incident , Whit lo w was t ranspo rt ed t o t he Universit y o f Kent ucky Medical Cent er fo r t reat ment o f mino r injuries she sust ained.1 While at t he ho spit al, a Lexingt o n po lice o fficer met wit h Whit lo w and immediat ely o bserved a st ro ng o do r o f alco ho l o n her breat h. The o fficer info rmed Whit lo w o f her right s and asked if she wo uld be willing t o speak wit h him. She gave verbal co nsent t hat she underst o o d her right s and was willing t o speak wit h t he o fficer, but she refused t o co nsent t o t he t aking o f a blo o d sample. Aft er t he o fficer’s co nversat io n wit h Whit lo w, he prepared an affidavit t it led “Affidavit in Suppo rt o f and Pet it io n fo r Co urt Order.” The affidavit , in it s ent iret y, st at es: Co mes t he affiant , a peace o fficer o f t he Lexingt o n Po lice Depart ment , who perso nally appeared befo re t he undersigned and being first duly swo rn no w o n o at h depo ses and affirms t he info rmat io n co nt ained herein is co mplet ely t rut hful based upo n fact s disco vered during an o pen invest igat io n and based o n t his info rmat io n is seeking a co urt o rdered blo o d draw fro m t he belo w list ed mo t o r vehicle o perat o r invo lved in a fat al mo t o r vehicle co llisio n pursuant t o KRS 189A. 105(3)(b). Pursuant t o KRS 189A. 105(3) (b) affiant is seeking t he fo llo wing: 1 Whit lo w claims t hat fo llo wing t he incident , she was arrest ed and t hen t ranspo rt ed t o t he ho spit al. The unifo rm cit at io n st at es t hat t he vio lat io n t ime fo r t wo co unt s o f manslaught er and o ne co unt o f o perat ing a mo t o r vehicle under t he influence was 2:34 a.m., and t he t ime o f arrest was appro ximat ely 5:30 a.m. 2 ■ Alco ho l in t he blo o d o f; Whit lo w, Suzanne, SSN (redact ed), 01/21/90 ■ Co nt ro lled subst ance in t he blo o d o f; Whit lo w, Suzanne, SSN (redact ed), 01/21/90 □ Co nt ro lled subst ance in t he bo dy o f; □ Physical evidence in t he bo dy o f; □ Co nt ro lled subst ance in t he urine o f; Affiant has been an o fficer in t he afo rement io ned agency fo r a perio d o f 17 years and t he info rmat io n and o bservat io ns co nt ained herein were received and made in his/her capacit y as an o fficer t hereo f. On t he 29t h day o f Oct o ber, 2017 (sic) at appro ximat ely 2:34 am, affiant received info rmat io n fro m/o bserved: A Co llisio n Reco nst ruct io n Unit call o ut was init iat ed co ncerning a co llisio n which o ccurred o n So ut h Upper St reet bet ween Bo livar and Sco t t St reet . The co llisio n invo lved a black 2010 Do dge passenger vehicle versus t wo pedest rians. Bo t h pedest rians were killed as a result o f t he co llisio n. Ms. Suzanne Whit lo w was t he o nly perso n present wit h t he vehicle upo n o fficers ’ arrival and was t ranspo rt ed t o t he Universit y o f Kent ucky Emergency Ro o m t o be checked o ut fo r injuries; she was bleeding fro m t he face. Ms. Whit lo w made co nflict ing st at ement s t o init ial respo nding o fficers indicat ing she was no t driving at t he t ime o f t he co llisio n but lat er st at ed t hat she was driving. Officers indicat ed she exhibit ed signs o f being under t he influence o f int o xicant s. Respo nding t o t he ho spit al, I met wit h Ms. Whit lo w and immediat ely o bserved a st ro ng o do r o f alco ho lic beverages o n her breat h and perso n. I explained t o Ms. Whit lo w her right s in acco rdance wit h t he Miranda co urt precedence (sic) and asked if she wo uld be willing t o speak t o me. She gave verbal co nsent t hat she underst o o d her right s and was willing t o speak wit h me. Ms. Whit lo w exhibit ed very slurred speech and her abilit y t o co mmunicat e was ext remely cho ppy wit h her co nt inued t angent s and inabilit y t o st ring t o get her co nt inued co herent t ho ught s and explanat io ns. She t o ld t his invest igat o r she was no t t he driver but t hen also admit t ed t hat she “might have t o ld t he po lice o fficer I was driving.” She explained t hat an unkno wn perso n was driving her vehicle. Wit ness, Michael Ruhe, a paramedic fo r t he Universit y o f Kent ucky Ho spit al was riding in an ambulance and behind t he black Do dge when t he co llisio n o ccurred. He saw t he car bo unce o ff t he brick wall and co me t o a rest . He immediat ely jumped o ut o f t he ambulance and went t o t he black car t o set t he emergency brake and t urn t he car o ff. He says o nly o ne perso n was in t he 3 vehicle when he go t up t o it and t hat he is cert ain t here were no o t her perso ns in it . He described t he perso n as sit t ing in t he driver’s seat wit h her feet in t he flo o rbo ard but her bo dy slumped o ver int o t he passenger’s seat . He gave a mat ching physical descript io n and clo t hing descript io n o f Ms. Whit lo w. Ms. Whit lo w had o nly o ne sho e o n when t ranspo rt ed t o t he Universit y o f Kent ucky Ho spit al. She co nfirmed t he o ne sho e in her ro o m was her sho e when asked; t he mat ching sho e was o bserved in t he driver’s flo o rbo ard o f t he vehicle. Ms. Whit lo w is also o ne o f t he t wo regist ered o wners o f t his vehicle. Ms. Whit lo w has facial injuries fro m which she is bleeding and t he driver’s airbag was o bserved t o have blo o d o n it . Affiant has reaso nable and pro bable cause t o believe t hat gro unds exist fo r t he issuance o f a Co urt Order pursuant t o KRS 189A. 105(3)(b) which st at es a mo t o r vehicle accident in which t here is a fat alit y o r physical injury t he co urt is no t pro hibit ed fro m issuing a co urt o rder requiring blo o d o r urine t est ing; in a mo t o r vehicle accident in which t here is a fat alit y, t he invest igat ing o fficer shall seek a search warrant fo r blo o d, breat h o r urine t est ing unless t he t est ing has already been do ne by co nsent ; and t o o bt ain and preserve t he afo rement io ned evidence, based o n t he afo rement io ned fact s info rmat io n and circumst ances and prays t hat a Co urt Order be issued, t hat t he evidence be remo ved fro m t he abo ve-ment io ned perso n and delivered int o t he cust o dy o f t he Lexingt o n Po lice Depart ment and bro ught befo re any Co urt and/o r ret ained subject t o o rder o f said Co urt , such subst ances being evidence in t he mat t er o f t he vio lat io n o f t he laws o f t he Co mmo nwealt h o f Kent ucky. The o fficer signed t he affidavit , which was subscribed and swo rn t o befo re a Fayet t e Dist rict Co urt judge o n Oct o ber 29, 2016, at 5:30 a.m. The judge t hen issued a “Co urt Order,” which st at es as fo llo ws: To : Whit lo w, Suzanne, SSN (redact ed), 01/21/90 and Universit y o f Kent ucky Ho spit al St aff Pro o f having been made befo re me by a peace o fficer o f t he Lexingt o n Po lice Depart ment , t hat t here is pro bable and reaso nable cause fo r t he issuance o f t his Co urt Order as set fo rt h in t he affidavit at t ached heret o and made part hereo f as if fully set o ut herein; yo u are co mmanded t o have a blo o d sample remo ved fro m yo ur perso n by t he Universit y o f Kent ucky medical st aff and released t o members o f t he Lexingt o n Po lice Depart ment Co llisio n Reco nst ruct io n Unit t o o bt ain t he fo llo wing evidence: a blo o d 4 sample fo r t est ing fo r int o xicat ing subst ances in yo ur bo dy and upo n remo val o f same, yo u are ORDERED t o deliver such evidence int o t he cust o dy o f Officer (redact ed), who shall t ake po ssessio n o f it and ret ain it in his cust o dy subject t o a subsequent o rder o f t his Co urt o r t he Fayet t e Circuit Co urt , o r t o have t he sample t est ed fo r int o xicat ing subst ances by t he Kent ucky St at e Po lice Lab, unt il furt her o rder o f t his Co urt o r t he Fayet t e Circuit Co urt , such evidence being pert inent t o an o ffense against t he peace and dignit y o f t he Co mmo nwealt h o f Kent ucky.2 The o rder was signed by t he dist rict co urt judge at 5:30 a.m. o n Oct o ber 29, 2016, and execut ed by t he o fficer, who t o o k po ssessio n o f t he blo o d sample t aken fro m Whit lo w by a nurse at t he ho spit al. Whit lo w’s blo o d alco ho l co nt ent was t est ed appro ximat ely t hree ho urs aft er t he incident and measured 0.237 grams per 100 millilit ers, nearly t hree t imes t he legal limit . On February 7, 2017, Whit lo w was charged wit h t wo co unt s o f seco nd- degree manslaught er, o ne co unt o f o perat ing a mo t o r vehicle under t he influence o f alco ho l wit h aggravat ing circumst ances, seco nd o ffense, and being a persist ent felo ny o ffender in t he seco nd degree (PFO II). On April 24, 2017, Whit lo w filed a mo t io n t o suppress t he blo o d t est , assert ing t hat t he t aking o f her blo o d pursuant t o t he co urt o rder vio lat ed her Fo urt h Amendment right s. Whit lo w and t he Co mmo nwealt h submit t ed briefs o n t he issue, and t he t rial co urt co nduct ed a hearing o n June 8, 2017. Whit lo w argued co rrect ly t hat t he st at ut e cit ed by t he o fficer in t he affidavit , Kent ucky Revised St at ut e (KRS) 189A. 105(3)(b), is no t an act ual st at ut e because while t here is a paragraph (3), t here is no subsect io n (b) in 2 The o fficer’s name and Whit lo w’s so cial securit y number have been redact ed. 5 t hat paragraph. Furt her, Whit lo w st at ed t hat t he applicable st at ut e, KRS 189A. 105(2)(b), pro vides no aut ho rit y fo r a co urt t o issue a “co urt o rder” t o o bt ain a blo o d sample and t hat absent t he requisit e search warrant , t he blo o d t est vio lat ed t he Fo urt h Amendment . The Co mmo nwealt h respo nded t hat in t his case, a search warrant and a co urt o rder were syno nymo us but even if t he co urt held o t herwise, t he blo o d t est was co nduct ed in go o d fait h as a result o f reaso nable reliance o n t he co urt ’s o rder. At t he co nclusio n o f t he hearing, t he t rial co urt o rally denied t he mo t io n t o suppress t he blo o d t est . The t rial co urt det ermined t hat t he best pract ice is fo r o fficers t o o bt ain a search warrant , since KRS 189A. 105(2)(b) says “shall seek ... a search warrant .” Ho wever, t he failure t o o bt ain an act ual search warrant was no t a fundament al flaw because t he o fficer pro vided accurat e info rmat io n in t he affidavit and did no t make inco rrect st at ement s wit h respect t o t he pro bable cause, which just ified t he blo o d t est . The t rial co urt fo und t hat t he go o d fait h except io n o ut lined in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applied t o t he execut io n o f t he co urt o rder. In a writ t en o rder o n June 9, 2017, t he t rial co urt denied t he mo t io n t o suppress fo r t he reaso ns st at ed o n t he reco rd. Fo llo wing issuance o f t he o rder, Whit lo w ent ered a co ndit io nal guilt y plea t o all charges, specifically reserving t he right t o appeal t he denial o f t he suppressio n mo t io n. The t rial co urt ent ered a final judgment o n t he co ndit io nal guilt y plea, co nvict ing Whit lo w o f t wo co unt s o f seco nd-degree manslaught er, o ne co unt o f o perat ing a mo t o r vehicle under t he influence o f 6 alco ho l wit h aggravat ing circumst ances, seco nd o ffense, and being a PFO II, and impo sing a t o t al priso n sent ence o f t went y years. Whit lo w no w appeals as a mat t er o f right , t he so le issue being whet her t he t rial co urt erred in denying her mo t io n t o suppress t he blo o d t est . ANALYSIS The st andard o f review o f a pret rial mo t io n t o suppress is t wo fo ld. “First , we review t he t rial co urt ’s findings o f fact under a clearly erro neo us st andard. Under t his st andard, t he t rial co urt 's findings o f fact will be co nclusive if t hey are suppo rt ed by subst ant ial evidence. We t hen co nduct a de novo review o f t he t rial co urt ’s applicat io n o f t he law t o t he fact s t o det ermine whet her it s decisio n is co rrect as a mat t er o f law.” Simpson v. Commonwealth, 474 S.W.3d 544, 547 (Ky. 2015) (cit at io ns o mit t ed). As no t ed, t he writ t en o rder st at ed t hat t he mo t io n t o suppress was denied fo r t he reaso ns st at ed o n t he reco rd. At t he hearing, t he t rial co urt made several findings o f fact and co ncluded t hat while a search warrant is a t ype o f co urt o rder, search warrant s and co urt o rders are no t t he same. Ho wever, t he failure t o o bt ain a do cument ent it led “search warrant ” was no t a fat al flaw because t he po lice pro vided co mplet e and accurat e info rmat io n t hat t he dist rict co urt judge relied o n in finding pro bable cause fo r issuing t he co urt o rder aut ho rizing t he t est ing. The t rial co urt furt her fo und t hat t he Leon except io n applied because it was reaso nable t o rely o n t he decisio n o f t he dist rict co urt judge and execut e t he co urt o rder. Finally, t he t rial co urt st at ed 7 t hat t he best pract ice fo r po lice is t o fo llo w t he st at ut e lit erally and o bt ain a search warrant . Whit lo w argues t hat t he t rial co urt erred as a mat t er o f law in ho lding t hat KRS 189A. 105(2)(b) did no t require law enfo rcement t o o bt ain a search warrant . KRS 189A. 105(2)(b) st at es: No t hing in t his subsect io n shall be co nst rued t o pro hibit a judge o f a co urt o f co mpet ent jurisdict io n fro m issuing a search warrant o r o t her co urt o rder requiring a blo o d o r urine t est , o r a co mbinat io n t hereo f, o f a defendant charged wit h a vio lat io n o f KRS 189A.010, o r o t her st at ut o ry vio lat io n arising fro m t he incident , when a perso n is killed o r suffers physical injury, as defined in KRS 500.080, as a result o f t he incident in which t he defendant has been charged. Ho wever, if t he incident invo lves a mo t o r vehicle accident in which t here was a fat alit y, t he invest igat ing peace o fficer shall seek such a search warrant fo r blo o d, breat h, o r urine t est ing unless t he t est ing has already been do ne by co nsent . If t est ing do ne pursuant t o a warrant reveals t he presence o f alco ho l o r any o t her subst ance t hat impaired t he driving abilit y o f a perso n who is charged wit h and co nvict ed o f an o ffense arising fro m t he accident , t he sent encing co urt shall require, in addit io n t o any o t her sent encing pro visio n, t hat t he defendant make rest it ut io n t o t he st at e fo r t he co st o f t he t est ing. During t he suppressio n hearing, bo t h part ies st ipulat ed t hat pro bable cause exist ed t o just ify t he blo o d t est . But Whit lo w argues t hat pursuant t o t his st at ut e, t he o fficer was required t o o bt ain a search warrant , no t a co urt o rder, t o aut ho rize t he blo o d t est . The Fo urt h Amendment t o t he Unit ed St at es Co nst it ut io n and Sect io n 10 o f t he Kent ucky Co nst it ut io n guarant ee t he individual right t o be free fro m 8 unreaso nable searches and seizures.3 Taking a sample o f a perso n’s blo o d is indisput ably a search. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct . 2160, 2173 (2016). Blo o d t est s require piercing t he skin and ext ract ing part o f t he subject ’s bo dy, making a blo o d t est significant ly mo re int rusive t han o t her met ho ds used fo r det ermining a perso n’s blo o d alco ho l co nt ent . Id. at 2178. Generally, warrant less searches are unreaso nable unless t he search falls under o ne o f t he except io ns t o t he warrant requirement . Commonwealth v. Hatcher, 199 S.W.3d 124, 126 (Ky. 2006). The Unit ed St at es Supreme Co urt has ident ified t hree requirement s wit hin t he language o f t he Fo urt h Amendment t hat must be met fo r a valid warrant : (1) t he warrant must be based o n pro bable cause; (2) t he warrant must be suppo rt ed by a swo rn affidavit ; and (3) t he warrant must co nt ain a part icular descript io n o f t he place t o be searched o r t he it ems t o be seized. Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 557 (2004). While a search warrant is a t ype o f co urt o rder, o bvio usly no t all co urt o rders co nst it ut e search warrant s. Here, t he co urt o rder relied upo n t o t est Whit lo w’s blo o d was no t labeled “search warrant ,” but in subst ance t hat is 3 The Fo urt h Amendment t o t he Unit ed St at es Co nst it ut io n st at es: “The right o f t he peo ple t o be secure in t heir perso ns, ho uses, papers, and effect s, against unreaso nable searches and seizures, shall no t be vio lat ed, and no Warrant s shall issue, but upo n pro bable cause, suppo rt ed by Oat h o r affirmat io n, and part icularly describing t he place t o be searched, and t he perso ns o r t hings t o be seized.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. Furt her, t he Kent ucky Co nst it ut io n pro vides t hat “[t ]he peo ple shall be secure in t heir perso ns, ho uses, papers and po ssessio ns, fro m unreaso nable search and seizure; and no warrant shall issue t o search any place, o r seize any perso n o r t hing, wit ho ut describing t hem as nearly as may be, no r wit ho ut pro bable cause suppo rt ed by o at h o r affirmat io n.” Ky. Co nst . § 10. 9 exact ly what it was. Pro bable cause exist ed t o just ify t he blo o d t est , and t he po lice o fficer co mplet ed a det ailed affidavit and pet it io n, subscribed and swo rn t o befo re a neut ral magist rat e, which o ut lined t he pro bable cause and t he specific it em t o be seized, i.e., a sample o f Whit lo w’s blo o d. Furt her, t he co urt o rder pro vided part icularized info rmat io n regarding t he search, what t he blo o d sample was t o be t est ed fo r, and what t o do wit h t he sample o nce t aken. All requirement s fo r a valid warrant were met . Id. In sho rt , even t ho ugh t he co urt o rder was no t t it led “search warrant ,” it had all t he essent ial element s o f a valid warrant , and co nsequent ly t he t rial co urt pro perly denied t he mo t io n t o suppress. To o verco me t he o bvio us subst ance and impo rt o f t he co urt o rder issued by t he Fayet t e Dist rict Co urt judge, Whit lo w raises several argument s. We find t hese argument s unco nvincing but address each in t urn. Whit lo w first argues t hat t he affidavit and result ing co urt o rder were defect ive due t o t he o fficer’s cit at io n o f impro per legal aut ho rit y, i.e., KRS 189A. 105(3)(b) when t hat st at ut e do es no t co nt ain a subsect io n (3)(b). Because t he o fficer cit ed subsect io n (3)(b) inst ead o f subsect io n (2)(b), Whit lo w co nt ends t hat t he dist rict co urt judge co uld no t rely o n t he affidavit as a valid legal basis fo r t he issuance o f t he co urt o rder regarding t he blo o d t est . We disagree. The o fficer’s erro neo us cit at io n t o KRS 189A. 105(3)(b) is no t a subst ant ial deficiency because he included language t aken direct ly fro m t he co rrect st at ut e, KRS 189A. 105(2)(b); his reference t o subsect io n (3)(b) is no t hing mo re t han a simple t ypo graphical erro r. This mis-cit at io n argument 10 and Whit lo w’s co mpanio n argument regarding t he t it le o f t he co urt o rder co mmanding t he blo o d t est are bo t h hyper-t echnical argument s ent it led t o lit t le weight . Cert ainly, neit her is a basis fo r invalidat ing an o t herwise pro per search warrant . As t his Co urt recent ly st at ed, “[a] ffidavit s are o ft en do ne in hast e. And mo st warrant s are issued ‘o n t he basis o f no nt echnical, co mmo n-sense judgment s o f laymen applying a st andard less demanding t han t ho se used in mo re fo rmal legal pro ceedings. And, at any rat e, ho w do t he t echnical refinement s act ually assist a judge in det ermining pro bable cause?”’ Abney v. Commonwealth, 483 S.W.3d 364, 368 (Ky. 2016) (quo t ing Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct . 2317, 2330 (1983)). Addit io nally, t his Co urt has no t ed t he impo rt ance o f being able t o o bt ain pro mpt ly cert ain evidence t hat is evanescent , like blo o d samples co nt aining alco ho l. Speers v. Commonwealth, 828 S.W.2d 638, 641 (Ky. 1992).4 While t he o fficer in t his case erred in cit ing t he wro ng subsect io n o f t he co nt ro lling st at ut e, and by labeling t he pet it io n as o ne fo r a co urt o rder, rat her t han mo re accurat ely a search warrant , t he co nst it ut io nally essent ial element s o f a warrant were present bo t h in t he o fficer’s pet it io n/affidavit and t he co urt o rder co mmanding t he blo o d t est . 4 Speers was rendered prio r t o Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 133 S. Ct . 1552 (2013), wherein t he Supreme Co urt held t hat t he nat ural dissipat io n o f alco ho l fro m t he blo o dst ream do es no t always co nst it ut e exigent circumst ances just ifying a warrant less search. Ho wever, Speers’ emphasis o n pro mpt t est ing in t hese circumst ances remains valid. 11 No t ably, t he t rial co urt ident ified a lo gical reaso n fo r why t he o fficer cho se t he label “co urt o rder” inst ead o f “search warrant .” The first sent ence o f KRS 189A. 105(2)(b) st at es t hat no t hing in subsect io n (2) shall pro hibit a judge “fro m issuing a search warrant or other court order requiring a blo o d o r urine t est . . . (Emphasis supplied.) The first and seco nd sent ences o f t he subsect io n can, at first glance, be difficult t o reco ncile, given t hat t he first sent ence st at es “search warrant o r o t her co urt o rder” when t here has been a mo t o r vehicle fat alit y, while t he seco nd sent ence st at es t hat t he o fficer “sho uld seek such a search warrant . . . .” The t wo sent ences are part ially repet it ive and can reaso nably leave a reader co nfused as t o whet her t he o fficer shall seek a co urt o rder o r search warrant in sit uat io ns like t his o ne.5 Given t he nat ure o f t he evidence being so ught , and t he urgency o f t he sit uat io n, t he o fficer likely act ed wit h hast e, but his misst eps in no way o bscured t he subst ance of what had o ccurred and t he legit imacy o f t he ensuing co urt - o rdered seizure o f a sample o f Whit lo w’s blo o d. To furt her bo lst er her argument , Whit lo w st at es t hat t he o fficer underst o o d t he difference bet ween a co urt o rder and a search warrant , given t hat t he t rial co urt reco rd includes search warrant s fo r Whit lo w’s cellular pho ne, vehicle, and Facebo o k acco unt . The fo rmat and info rmat io n included 5 The first sent ence aut ho rizes seeking a search warrant o r co urt o rder fo r urine and/o r blo o d t est ing where t he defendant is charged wit h driving under t he influence and “a perso n is killed o r suffers physical injury.” KRS 189A. 105(2)(b). The seco nd sent ence pert ains t o blo o d, breat h o r urine t est ing where t he incident result ed in a fat alit y. Id. 12 in t hese search warrant s, ho wever, is very similar t o t he fo rmat and info rmat io n used in t he pet it io n fo r t he co urt o rder t o o bt ain t he blo o d t est . The affidavit s fo r t he search warrant s include descript io ns o f t he it ems t o be seized o r places t o be searched, and include t he same o bservat io ns/fact s, wit h few addit io ns, t hat t he pet it io n fo r t he co urt o rder regarding blo o d t est ing included. The presence o f o t her warrant s do es no t hing t o det ract fro m t he subst ance o f t he challenged co urt o rder. Next , Whit lo w cit es t o Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct . 2206, 2208 (2018), t o reit erat e t hat co urt o rders and search warrant s are no t syno nymo us. In Carpenter, t he go vernment so ught cell pho ne reco rds t o est ablish fro m cell t o wer dat a t hat a defendant was near fo ur ro bbery lo cat io ns at t he t ime t he ro bberies o ccurred. Id. The go vernment o bt ained a co urt o rder under t he St o red Co mmunicat io ns Act and t hen used t he evidence at t rial t o o bt ain a co nvict io n. Id. at 2209. On certiorari, t he Supreme Co urt held t hat acquisit io n o f t he cell-sit e reco rds was a Fo urt h Amendment search and t he go vernment must generally o bt ain a search warrant befo re acquiring cert ain pho ne reco rds. Id. at 2221. Significant ly, t he Supreme Co urt no t ed t hat t he issues present ed in Carpenter did no t fit neat ly under exist ing search and seizure precedent due t o t he unique nat ure o f cell pho ne lo cat io n reco rds. Id. at 2209, 2217. Furt her, t he Supreme Co urt quo t ed it s decisio n in Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct . 2473 (2014), st at ing “[a] search o f t he info rmat io n o n a cell pho ne bears lit t le resemblance t o t he t ype o f brief physical search co nsidered in prio r 13 precedent s.” Id. at 2222. The prio r precedent referred t o in Riley is a case t hat invo lved t he search o f a cigaret t e pack fo und o n t he defendant ’s perso n. United States v. Robinson, 94 S. Ct . 467, 471 (1973). Alt ho ugh Carpenter addressed t he sufficiency o f a co urt o rder in lieu o f a search warrant , given t he unique nat ure o f cell pho ne lo cat io n dat a, t he Supreme Co urt ’s ho lding in Carpenter has no bearing o n t he present case invo lving a physical search fo r blo o d fo llo wing mo t o r vehicle fat alit ies. Whit lo w next argues t hat t he t rial co urt o rder fo r t he blo o d t est vio lat es t he separat io n o f po wers do ct rine. In Combs v. Commonwealth, 965 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Ky. 1998), t his Co urt det ermined t hat [t ]he Fo urt h Amendment t o t he Unit ed St at es Co nst it ut io n and Sect io n 10 o f t he Kent ucky Co nst it ut io n assure t he peo ple t hat t hey will be free fro m all unreaso nable search and seizure. To suppo rt such an assurance, t hese co nst it ut io nal pro visio ns mandat e t hat t he execut ive branch must first o bt ain a warrant based o n pro bable cause befo re it co nduct s any search o r seizure. Neit her co nst it ut io n grant s t he execut ive branch t he right t o seek a search warrant no r t he judiciary t he right t o issue o ne, but rat her t he co nst it ut io nal sect io ns place rest rict io ns o n when t he execut ive branch o f t he go vernment can co nduct any search o r seizure. Generally, t he requirement s t hat search warrant s be issued by a neut ral magist rat e and be suppo rt ed by pro bable cause funct io n as a check o n t he po wer o f t he execut ive branch. Whit lo w co nt ends t hat t he co urt o rder fo r t he blo o d t est vio lat es t he do ct rine o f separat io n o f po wers because t he o rder fails t o place any co nst it ut io nal rest rict io ns o n law enfo rcement o fficers. The co urt o rder direct ed Whit lo w t o submit t o blo o d t est ing and direct ed t he ho spit al t o 14 o bt ain t he blo o d sample and pro vide it t o law enfo rcement o fficials, rat her t han direct ing t he o fficers t o t ake so me part icular act io n. While it is t rue t hat t he co urt o rder primarily direct s act io n o n t he part o f t he ho spit al, t he reco rd reflect s t hat Whit lo w was already at t he ho spit al when t he affidavit and pet it io n fo r co urt o rder were submit t ed. As no t ed, Whit lo w was t ranspo rt ed t o t he ho spit al fo r mino r injuries and was in po lice cust o dy at t he t ime t he co urt o rder was issued. It was unnecessary fo r t he co urt t o o rder a law enfo rcement o fficer t o t ranspo rt Whit lo w t o a medical facilit y fo r a blo o d sample when she was already at t he ho spit al. In any event , direct ing t he o fficer t o t ake po ssessio n and co nt ro l o f t he blo o d sample aft er it was t aken was cert ainly a direct ive t o members o f t he execut ive branch. No vio lat io n o f t he separat io n o f po wers o ccurred. Whit lo w furt her relies o n Birchfield, 136 S. Ct . at 2172, t o suppo rt her argument t hat t he co urt o rder and subsequent blo o d t est vio lat ed her Fo urt h Amendment right s. In Birchfield, t he Supreme Co urt reviewed t hree co nso lidat ed cases and co nsidered whet her a mo t o rist co uld be co mpelled t o submit t o a breat h t est o r t he t aking o f a blo o d sample wit ho ut a search warrant , id. at 2185. The Supreme Co urt held t hat a breat h t est , but no t a blo o d t est , can be administ ered as a search incident t o arrest wit ho ut a warrant . Id. Here o ur det erminat io n t hat t he co urt o rder funct io ned as a valid warrant renders t he “incident t o arrest ” except io n t o t he warrant requirement addressed in Birchfield irrelevant t o o ur analysis. 15 Finally, we no t e t hat t he t rial co urt invo ked t he go o d fait h except io n t o t he exclusio nary rule as furt her gro unds fo r it s denial o f t he suppressio n mo t io n. In Leon, o fficers relied o n a facially valid search warrant t o search several ho mes and aut o mo biles fo r it ems relat ed t o drug t rafficking. 468 U.S. at 902. The search pro duced large quant it ies o f drugs, and t he defendant s so ught t o suppress t he evidence. Id. The Supreme Co urt held t hat evidence sho uld no t be suppressed if o bt ained by o fficers relying o n a facially valid warrant even t ho ugh t he underlying affidavit was insufficient t o est ablish pro bable cause. Id. at 922. The Leon Co urt explained t hat “t he o fficer’s reliance o n t he magist rat e’s pro bable-cause det erminat io n and o n t he t echnical sufficiency o f t he warrant he issues must be o bject ively reaso nable . . . .” Id. at 922-23 (int ernal cit at io ns o mit t ed). “[S] uppressio n is appro priat e o nly if t he o fficers were disho nest o r reckless in preparing t heir affidavit o r co uld no t have harbo red an o bject ively reaso nable belief in t he exist ence o f pro bable cause.” Id. at 926. Here, t he o fficer’s affidavit included numero us fact s and o bservat io ns est ablishing pro bable cause t o just ify t he blo o d t est . No ne o f t he info rmat io n included in t he affidavit was false o r misleading, and t he o fficer’s belief t hat pro bable cause exist ed, a belief co nfirmed by t he judge who signed t he o rder, was no t unreaso nable. The Leon go o d fait h except io n need no t be invo ked because t he affidavit and ensuing o rder were no t deficient . In sum, we are persuaded t hat t he t rial co urt ’s findings of fact regarding t he co urt o rder fo r t he blo o d t est were suppo rt ed by subst ant ial evidence. 16 Pro bable cause was no t co nt est ed, and despit e an impro per label, t he co urt o rder was fo r all int ent s and purpo ses a valid search warrant . No t echnical o r pro cedural vio lat io ns o f Whit lo w’s Fo urt h Amendment right s o ccurred, despit e Whit lo w’s assert ed hyper-t echnical deficiencies. The o fficer o bt ained a valid search warrant , even t ho ugh it was labeled as a co urt o rder, befo re t he blo o d t est was administ ered. Based o n t he est ablished fact s and exist ing law, t he t rial co urt pro perly denied t he mo t io n t o suppress. CONCLUSION Fo r t he fo rego ing reaso ns, t he judgment o f t he Fayet t e Circuit Co urt is affirmed. All sit t ing. All co ncur. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Jerry Lee Wright JERRY L. WRIGHT, P.S.C. COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Andy Beshear At t o rney General o f Kent ucky William Ro bert Lo ng, Jr. Assist ant At t o rney General Office o f Criminal Appeals 17