Title: ADRIAN L. CALDWELL V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY l, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION . uprrmr Vwurf of 2008-SC-000262-MR MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING RENDERED : NOVEMBER 25, 2009 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ADRIAN L. CALDWELL PPEL ON APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT V . HONORABLE I2 . JEFFREY HINES, JUDCTE NO . 06-CR-00325 ~ .- _t tcc aq_. a ,A-IN' t COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE On April 21, 2006, Officer Justin Canup of the Paducah Police Department received a dispatch at approximately 6:35 p.m. An anonymous caller had indicated that there were several people gambling on the 1000 block of Tennessee Street . Officer Canup arrived at the 1000 block and saw two men walking and Appellant, Adrian L. Caldwell, riding a bicycle alongside them . Officer Canup did not have his emergency lights activated on his squad car as he approached the men. As he exited his vehicle, he asked the three individuals if they could "hang around a second ." Officer Canup then asked if they had been shooting craps, to which they replied no . The question was repeated, and when the officer asked who had the dice, one of the individuals, identified as Mr. Bile, displayed dice to him . At this point, Officer Canup asked for identification . Appellant handed Officer Canup his driver's license, and the other two men simply stated their names . Dispatch was radioed to determine if there were any outstanding warrants or juvenile pickups, but none were present . Dispatch did, however, indicate to Officer Canup that Appellant had a drug history . Officer Canup asked Appellant if he had any drugs on him and if he would consent to a search of his person. According to the officer, Appellant turned to walk away and dropped a "joint" on the ground . The officer asked Appellant, "Is that a joint?", and Appellant began to flee . Officer Canup captured and arrested Appellant after a brief struggle . A search incident to arrest conducted by Officer J .R. Phelps led to the discovery of a baggie in Appellant's right rear pocket containing three smaller bags of crack cocaine and approximately $1,450 in cash . Appellant sought to suppress the evidence, claiming that it resulted from an illegal seizure, and a hearing was held on April 7, 2007. The trial court issued a written opinion and order denying Appellant's motion to suppress . Appellant was ultimately found guilty of possession of ;a controlled substance in the first degree (cocaine), possession of marijuana, fleeing or evading a police officer in the second degree, and resisting arrest. The jury returned a five-year sentence for the possession of a controlled substance conviction, which was enhanced to twenty years after the jury found Appellant to be a persistent felony offender in the first degree . He now appeals the final judgment as a matter of right, Ky . Const. § 110(2)(b) . The sole issue on appeal is whether Appellant was illegally seized when Officer Canup asked him to "hang around a second" and later to produce identification . "When reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, we utilize a clear -error standard of review for factual findings and a de novo standard of review for conclusions of law." Jackson v. Commonwealth, 187 S.W.3d 300, 305 (Ky . 2006) . In determining whether police conduct amounts to a seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment, courts must take into account all the circumstances surrounding the incident in each individual case. However, "not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves `seizures' of persons." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S . 1, 19 n . 16 (1968) . A person is seized when police officers restrain the person's liberty through the use of physical force or a show of authority if, based on all of the circumstances of the encounter, a reasonable person would not feel free to decline the officers' requests or to otherwise terminate the encounter. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) . In the instant case, when Officer Canup approached Appellant and the other two individuals and asked them to "hang around a second," there was no seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment. Officer Canup approached without his emergency lights being activated . He was the only officer on the scene, brandished no weapon, and did not use language indicating that compliance with his request was compulsory. Id . Officer Canup requested, but did not demand, to see Appellant's identification . Questions concerning one's identity or a request for identification by the police do not by themselves constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure . I.N.S. v. Dejado, 466 U.S. 210, 216 (1984) . In addition, Officer Canup's questions concerning who had the dice did not change the consensual nature of the encounter . The U.S . Supreme Court has made clear that no seizure occurs when an officer approaches an individual and merely asks questions . Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991) . See also Florida V. Rover, 460 U.S . 491, 497 (1983) ("[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, [or] by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen . . . ...) . To hold otherwise would "impose wholly unrealistic restrictions upon a wide variety of legitimate law enforcement practices ." Mendenhall, 446 U.S . at 554 . Given the circumstances surrounding Officer Canup's approach and questioning, we cannot say that the encounter was so "intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded." Delgadg, 466 U.S . at 216 . Indeed, Appellant began to walk away from Officer Canup during the questioning. Appellant was not seized simply by virtue of the fact that an officer approached him and asked him to present identification . Nor did the seizure occur when Officer Canup posed a few questions concerning the alleged gambling and whether he had drugs on his person . Mendenhall, 446 U.S . at 555. The seizure occurred only after Appellant began walking away, dropped contraband on the ground, and ran . Therefore, the trial court was correct in denying Appellant's motion to suppress . The judgment-of the McCracken Circuit Court is hereby affirmed . All sitting. All concur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Shelly R. Fears Assistant Public Advocate Department of Public Advocacy 100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 302 Frankfort, KY 40601-1133 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Jack Conway Attorney General Courtney J. Hightower Assistant Attorney General Office of Attorney General Criminal Appellate Division 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, KY 40601-8204