Title: OWENS v. STATE

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2011
JOSEPH RANDALL 
OWENS,
Appellant 
(Defendant),
 
v.
 
THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,
Appellee 
(Plaintiff).
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Campbell County
The 
Honorable John R. Perry, Judge
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Diane M. Lozano, 
State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior 
Assistant Appellate Counsel.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory A. Phillips, 
Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael 
Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Stewart M. Young, Director, and 
Joshua B. Taylor, Student Director, Prosecution Assistance Program, University 
of Wyoming, College of Law.
 
Before KITE, C.J., 
and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
 
BURKE, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]        
Appellant, 
Joseph Randall Owens, entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of 
methamphetamine in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii).  He reserved the right to appeal the 
constitutionality of the search that resulted in discovery of the 
methamphetamine.  We 
affirm.
 
ISSUE
 
[¶2]      
Appellant presents 
the following issue:
 
Should the motion to 
suppress evidence seized in a warrantless search of Appellant’s containers have 
been granted? 
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]        
An officer of the 
Gillette Police Department was dispatched to a local Gillette motel in response 
to a 911 call reporting a medical emergency.  The officer, who was also a trained 
emergency medical technician, arrived before any medical personnel and was led 
to Appellant’s motel room by the woman who had reported the emergency.  The woman was a friend of Appellant’s and 
had been staying with her children in an adjoining room.  She had gone to Appellant’s room earlier 
that morning to wake Appellant so they could check out of the motel.  Soon after she roused Appellant, 
however, he collapsed onto the floor.  
When she asked Appellant whether she should call 911, Appellant “said 
yes, that he didn’t want to die.”
 
[¶4]        
When the officer 
entered Appellant’s room, he found Appellant on his back on the floor, 
convulsing.  His eyes were extremely 
wide, and he was unable to focus.  Appellant did not respond to the 
officer’s attempts to communicate with him.  The officer asked Appellant’s friend if 
she knew anything about Appellant’s condition, but she was unable to provide any 
pertinent information.  Emergency 
medical personnel arrived as the officer was attempting to gather information 
from Appellant’s friend.
 
[¶5]        
As the medical 
personnel tended to Appellant, the officer looked around the room in an attempt 
to determine the cause of Appellant’s condition.  The officer noticed a backpack on the 
bed.  He opened the front 
compartment and found a black plastic case.  Inside the case, the officer found 
transparent pill bottles lacking prescription labels.  Noticing that the bottles contained a 
substance that was not in pill form, the officer opened the bottles and 
discovered that the substance appeared to be methamphetamine.  The officer found a second case in 
another compartment of Appellant’s backpack that contained a triangular metal 
dish and a spoon.  The officer 
informed the medical personnel of what he had found, which prompted them to 
begin treating Appellant for a suspected drug overdose.
 
[¶6]        
After Appellant was 
taken to the hospital, the officer secured Appellant’s motel room.  At some point prior to applying for a 
search warrant, the officer entered Appellant’s friend’s room and retrieved a 
cardboard box from a trash can.1  The officer made no reference to this 
evidence in his affidavit supporting the warrant to search Appellant’s motel 
room.  After a search warrant was 
authorized, the officer returned to Appellant’s motel room and seized evidence 
of drug use from a duffel bag, including a pipe, multiple syringes, and a 
spoon.
 
[¶7]        
Appellant was charged 
with possession of methamphetamine in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
35-7-1031(c)(ii).  He filed a motion 
to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the officer’s warrantless search. 
 After a hearing, Appellant’s motion 
was denied.  Appellant then entered 
a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to challenge the denial of his 
motion to suppress.  The district 
court imposed a sentence of two to four years, which was suspended in favor of a 
four-year probation term.  This 
appeal followed.
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW
 
[¶8]        
When 
reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we defer to the district court’s 
factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.  We view the evidence in the light most 
favorable to the district court’s determination because that court had the 
opportunity to hear the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses.  We review de novo the ultimate determination 
regarding the constitutionality of a particular search or seizure.  Lovato v. State, 2010 WY 38, ¶ 
11, 228 P.3d 55, 57 (Wyo. 2010).
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶9]        
Appellant contends 
that evidence of methamphetamine seized from his backpack should have been 
suppressed because it was discovered during an unlawful search.  He claims that the search of his 
backpack was unreasonable because there was no connection between his medical 
emergency and the search.  Under the 
circumstances presented, however, we find that the search was 
reasonable.
 
[¶10]     
The Fourth Amendment 
to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution 
protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. 
 See Pena v. 
State, 2004 WY 115, ¶ 29, 
98 P.3d 857, 870 (Wyo. 2004).  A 
search conducted without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable.  Morris v. State, 908 P.2d 931, 935 (Wyo. 1995).  This presumption, however, is not 
absolute.  Id., 908 P.2d  at 935.  As the Supreme Court has noted, “When 
faced with special law enforcement needs, diminished expectations of privacy, 
minimal intrusions, or the like, the Court has found that certain general, or 
individual, circumstances may render a warrantless search or seizure 
reasonable.”  Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330, 
121 S. Ct. 946, 949, 148 L. Ed. 2d 838 (2001). 
 When 
a search is conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden to show that 
the search was reasonable.  Morris, 908 P.2d  at 935.
 
[¶11]     
In 
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978), the Supreme Court recognized the 
justification for searches in emergency situations:
 
We 
do not question the right of the police to respond to emergency situations. 
Numerous state and federal cases have recognized that the Fourth Amendment does 
not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they 
reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid. Similarly, 
when the police come upon the scene of a homicide they may make a prompt 
warrantless search of the area to see if there are other victims or if a killer 
is still on the premises. Cf. Michigan v. 
Tyler, [436 U.S. 499, 509-510, 98 S. Ct. 1942, 1949-1950, 56 L. Ed. 2d 486 
(1978)]. “The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is 
justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or 
emergency.” Wayne v. United States, 
115 U.S. App. D. C. 234, 241, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (opinion of Burger, J.).    
Id., 437 U.S.  at 392-93, 98 S. Ct.  at 
2413 (footnotes omitted).  The Court 
noted, however, that “a warrantless search must be 'strictly circumscribed by 
the exigencies which justify its initiation.’” Id., 437 U.S.  at 393, 98 S. Ct.  at 2413 
(quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 
26, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1882, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)).
 
[¶12]     
We 
have previously recognized that a warrantless search in an emergency situation 
may be justified where a law enforcement officer is acting to 
enhance public safety pursuant to a “community caretaker function.”  In Morris, 908 P.2d  at 936, we summarized 
this justification as follows:
 
In 
Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d [215,] 221 
[(Wyo. 1994)], we discussed an officer’s community caretaker function, 
stating that this function, as outlined in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 
93 S. Ct. 2523, 2528, 37 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1973), permits police to act in a manner 
that enhances public safety. To justify this community caretaker function and 
establish the reasonableness of any search and seizure that results, specific 
and articulable facts must be present. Wilson, 874 P.2d  at 221.  Therefore, the totality of the 
circumstances must be examined at the inception of the officer’s action to 
determine whether the search and/or seizure was reasonably related in scope to 
the circumstances.
The 
community caretaker justification for a warrantless search recognizes the 
various duties of a police officer, some of which are “totally divorced from the 
detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation 
of a criminal statute.”  Cady, 413 U.S.  at 441, 93 S. Ct.  at 2528. 
 As noted by one respected treatise 
in a discussion of warrantless searches for purposes other than law enforcement, 

 
The 
police have “complex and multiple tasks to perform in addition to identifying 
and apprehending persons committing serious criminal offenses”; by design or 
default, the police are also expected to “reduce the opportunities for the 
commission of some crimes through preventative patrol and other measures,” “aid 
individuals who are in danger of physical harm,” “assist those who cannot care 
for themselves,” “resolve conflict,” “create and maintain a feeling of security 
in the community,” and “provide other services on an emergency 
basis.”
 
3 
Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 
6.6, at 451 (4th ed. 2004) (quoting ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, §§ 
1-1.1, 1-2.2 (2d ed. 1980)).
 
[¶13]     
In Morris, we considered, and ultimately 
rejected, the State’s argument that the community caretaker function justified a 
law enforcement officer’s warrantless search of the appellant’s wallet.  Nonetheless, our review of the present 
case is guided by a comparison to the facts in Morris.  
In that case, a deputy sheriff responded to a report that the 
appellant was sleeping in the backyard of a private residence.  Id., 908 P.2d  at 933.  When the deputy woke the appellant, he 
was unsteady and disoriented.  After 
the appellant returned to the sheriff’s office with the deputy so that he could 
call someone to come get him, he discovered that he had lost his wallet.  The deputy recalled seeing the wallet in 
his patrol car and offered to search the vehicle for it.  Upon locating the wallet on the 
floorboard of his vehicle, the deputy proceeded to search the wallet and found a 
tightly folded piece of paper containing a white powdery substance that was 
later identified as methamphetamine.  
Id., 908 P.2d  at 933-34.  In light of the fact that the appellant “was 
alert and conscious enough to ask questions, answer questions, and keep his 
faculties about him,” and the fact that the appellant “was sitting in a chair in 
the interview room smoking a cigarette when the Deputy left him,” we found no 
evidence to suggest that the appellant was incapacitated or unconscious when the 
deputy left to retrieve his wallet.  
Id., 908 P.2d  at 937.  Accordingly, we decided that “the record 
fails to show that an emergency situation existed or to establish any specific 
and articulable facts to justify the search pursuant to an officer’s community 
caretaker function.”  Id.
 
[¶14]     
In this case, the 
responding officer was presented with an emergency situation when, upon entering 
Appellant’s motel room, he found Appellant convulsing on the floor.  Appellant was unable to communicate with 
the officer and did not respond to the officer’s attempts to gain his 
attention.  During the encounter, 
Appellant’s eyes were extremely wide and periodically rolled to the back of his 
head.  The officer was unable to 
gather any pertinent information about Appellant’s condition from Appellant’s 
acquaintance.  Under these 
circumstances, it was reasonable for the officer to search Appellant’s backpack, 
as well as the containers found therein, in an attempt to aid Appellant.  Despite the subsequent arrival of 
emergency medical personnel, it was 
reasonable for the officer, who had also received training as an emergency 
medical technician, to seek identification indicating a specific medical 
condition, emergency medication to alleviate Appellant’s seizure, or substances 
that may have contributed to Appellant’s condition.  The officer’s discovery of 
methamphetamine prompted the medical technicians to treat Appellant for a 
suspected drug overdose.  Based on 
the totality of the circumstances, we find that the State satisfied its burden 
of establishing specific and articulable facts showing that the search was 
justified pursuant to the officer’s community caretaker 
function.
 
[¶15]     
Appellant asserts 
that the officer’s seizure of a cardboard box from his friend’s motel room shows 
that the officer engaged in a “general 
exploratory search” that was “related to the emergency only as a matter of 
fortuitous opportunity.”  We agree 
that the officer’s search of the adjoining motel room was unrelated to the 
exigencies created by Appellant’s emergency.  However, the fact that the officer 
retrieved a cardboard box from the neighboring motel room does not undermine our 
conclusion that the officer’s search of Appellant’s backpack was objectively 
reasonable.  The search of the trash 
can in the neighboring room, conducted after Appellant had been transported to 
the hospital, has no bearing on the reasonableness of the officer’s search at 
the time of Appellant’s emergency.  
Further, the issuance of the search warrant for Appellant’s room was not 
in any measure based on evidence discovered during the officer’s search of the 
neighboring room.  The officer’s 
affidavit in support of the warrant to search Appellant’s motel room makes no 
reference to his search or observations in the adjoining room.  While the facts may present a question 
as to whether the search in the adjoining room was lawful with respect to 
Appellant’s friend’s Fourth Amendment rights, Appellant has not demonstrated 
that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his friend’s room and, as a 
result, he does not have standing to challenge that search.  Miller v. State, 2009 WY 125, ¶ 24, 217 P.3d 793, 801 (Wyo. 2009).
 
[¶16]     
Affirmed.
[¶17]     
FOOTNOTES
1According to the 
officer’s testimony, he seized the box because, “It had a little burn mark up in 
the corner of the box; that along with the spoon that I found, looked like it 
had been from that spoon.”
[¶18]