RENDERED: DECEMBER 18, 2020; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2019-CA-1422-MR

DAVID M. COLLINS APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT

v. HONORABLE GREGORY M. BARTLETT, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 18-CR-00838

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, MAZE, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: David Collins (“Collins”) appeals from an order of the 

Kenton Circuit Court denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a 

vehicular stop. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the record, and the 

applicable law, we affirm.
-2-

Background

A few weeks prior to the incident in question, Officer Fields of the 

Kenton County Police Department was contacted by an Independence city police 

officer who had conducted a traffic stop on a white vehicle suspected of drug

trafficking on Bowman Road. Collins was identified as the driver of the vehicle, a 

2007 Chevy HHR. The Independence officer had received a tip from a resident of 

Bowman Road who reported seeing the white vehicle make short stops at a 

neighboring house at random times and on random days. Officer Fields testified 

the home was the subject of several drug complaints and the site of a recent drug 

overdose. Officer Fields circulated this information to all Kenton County police 

officers.

On May 10, 2018, sometime after 9 p.m., Officer Patton, also with the 

Kenton County Police Department, received a report from dispatch concerning a 

tip from an individual named “Ron” about possible drug trafficking. According to

dispatch, the caller stated Collins was currently at a residence on Bird Road in 

Independence, Kentucky and would soon be traveling in a 2007 white Chevy HHR 

to Collins’ apartment in Glencoe, Kentucky. The caller gave dispatch Collins’

address and the address of the residence Collins was currently at on Bird Road, 

along with the license number of the vehicle. He further stated Collins concealed
-3-

drugs in the bottom of a fake aerosol can and would have meth, scales, baggies,

and Xanax in the car. The caller provided dispatch his phone number and hung up.

After receiving the message, Officer Patton called the number and 

spoke to Ron briefly before Ron handed the phone over to an anonymous woman. 

She repeated the information Ron had given to dispatch and said Collins would be 

leaving the Bird Road location soon and heading to Glencoe, Kentucky, where he 

acquires the drugs he sells in Independence. She said Collins showed her the drugs 

and had them on his person, hidden in the bottom of an air freshener can. The 

woman also described the route Collins would be taking.

Based upon this information, Officer Patton set up surveillance across 

from Bird Road. About ten minutes later, he observed a white Chevy HHR exit 

Bird Road in the direction predicted by the caller. Officer Patton followed the 

vehicle until he observed the driver fail to use a turn signal and initiated a traffic 

stop. Officer Patton approached the vehicle and confirmed Collins was the driver.

Upon speaking with Collins, Officer Patton learned Collins had just 

left his parents’ home on Bird Road and was heading to his home in Glencoe. 

Officer Patton asked Collins for proof of insurance and radioed for a K-9 unit. 

After Collins produced an expired insurance card, Officer Patton returned to his 

vehicle to verify the insurance was valid.
-4-

Officer Fields arrived on scene and confirmed the vehicle and driver 

matched the information received from Independence police just weeks earlier. 

Officer Fields testified that when he arrived, Officer Patton was attempting to 

verify Collins’ insurance with the insurance company. At 10:18 p.m., twenty-six

minutes into the stop, Officer Best, a K-9 officer with the Fort Mitchell Police 

Department, arrived to conduct a search of the vehicle. Both Officers Best and 

Patton testified that Officer Patton was still filling out the traffic citation when 

Officer Best arrived. The K-9 alerted on the vehicle and following a search, 

officers recovered a meth pipe, digital scales, close to $1,500 in cash, and an air 

freshener can with a false bottom containing over two grams of meth, 8 Xanax

pills, and baggies.

Following his arrest, Collins was indicted for first-degree trafficking

in a controlled substance. He moved to suppress the evidence recovered from the 

search of his vehicle and the circuit court denied the motion. Thereafter, Collins

entered a conditional guilty plea to first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance

and was sentenced to five years in prison. This appeal followed.

Standard of Review

“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, 
-5-

305 (Ky. 2006) (citing Welch v. Commonwealth, 149 S.W.3d 407, 409 (Ky. 2004)). 

The circuit court’s factual findings are not challenged on appeal. Therefore, our 

review will consist only of the circuit court’s application of the relevant law to the 

facts.

Analysis

Collins argues that the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to 

suppress. He does not challenge the legality of the stop itself, but instead contends 

that Officer Patton illegally extended the traffic stop beyond its original purpose to

conduct the K-9 search. In Davis v. Commonwealth, 484 S.W.3d 288 (Ky. 2016), 

the Kentucky Supreme Court followed the United States Supreme Court’s decision 

in Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), and held police may not extend 

a traffic stop beyond its original purpose to conduct an unrelated K-9 search for 

drugs. Davis, 484 S.W.3d at 293.

The Commonwealth contends, however, that Davis is not implicated 

because the officers had reasonable suspicion of drug activity justifying the K-9 

search. We agree. “A reviewing court must weigh the totality of the 

circumstances in determining whether there was a reasonable articulable 

suspicion.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 250 S.W.3d 631, 634 (Ky. 2008) (citing

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). 
-6-

The Commonwealth points to five specific, articulable facts giving 

Officer Patton reasonable suspicion of drug activity at the time he radioed for a K9 unit: 1) several weeks earlier, an Independence police officer reported that 

Collins’ vehicle was spotted making frequent, brief stops at a house on Bowman 

Road; 2) the house was known for drug activity; 3) the description of the vehicle 

given by the Independence police officer matched the description given by Ron 

and the anonymous tipster, including the license plate number; 4) Ron and the 

anonymous tipster both told Officer Patton that methamphetamine, Xanax, 

baggies, and scales were in the vehicle at that moment; and 5) the anonymous 

tipster described the location of Collins’ vehicle and the route that it would be 

taking when it left that location. 

The bases for these facts were several tips: one from an Independence 

police officer which was itself based upon another tip, one from a man named Ron, 

and one from an anonymous female. As an initial matter, our Supreme Court has 

distinguished anonymous from non-anonymous tips for purposes of analyzing 

“reasonable suspicion.” Commonwealth v. Kelly, 180 S.W.3d 474, 477 (Ky. 2005).

Tips from “identifiable informants who could be subject to criminal liability if it is

discovered that the tip is unfounded or fabricated . . . are entitled to a greater

‘presumption of reliability’ as opposed to the tips of unknown ‘anonymous’

informants (who theoretically have ‘nothing to lose’).” Id. (quoting Florida v. J.L., 
-7-

529 U.S. 266, 276 (2000)). Here, at least one tip was not from a truly anonymous 

source and would thus be entitled to a greater presumption of reliability.1 See

Dorsey v. Barber, 517 F.3d 389, 398 n.3 (6th Cir. 2008) (tipster who identified 

himself and left phone number not anonymous). 

However, even assuming all the tips were from anonymous sources, 

there was sufficient indicia of their reliability to provide reasonable suspicion

justifying the K-9 search. Commonwealth v. Morgan, 248 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Ky. 

2008) (citation omitted) (“Before an investigating officer can rely on 

an anonymous tip as part of his basis for reasonable suspicion, that tip must have 

sufficient indicia of reliability.”). 

In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990), the United States Supreme 

Court found an anonymous tip was sufficient to justify a Terry stop when 

the tip accurately predicted the future behavior of the person to be searched.  This 

prediction of future behavior indicated the tipster possessed a level of intimate

knowledge of the individual to be searched, which the Court found to be sufficient

indicia of reliability.  Id. at 332.

In the instant case, both Ron and the anonymous female provided

Collins’ current location and destination. But more importantly, the anonymous 

 

1

It is unclear from the record whether the tip provided to the Independence Police Department 

was from an “anonymous” source or a “citizen informant,” but for purposes of the reasonable 

suspicion analysis, we will assume the former.
-8-

female said Collins currently had drugs in his possession, had shown them to her, 

was leaving soon, and accurately predicted the route Collins would be traveling. 

“What was important was the caller’s ability to predict respondent’s future 

behavior, because it demonstrated inside information—a special familiarity with 

respondent’s affairs.” Id. (emphasis in original). “Because only a small number of 

people are generally privy to an individual’s itinerary, it is reasonable for police to 

believe that a person with access to such information is likely to also have access 

to reliable information about that individual’s illegal activities.”  Id. “When 

significant aspects of the caller’s predictions were verified, there was reason to 

believe not only that the caller was honest but also that he was well informed, at 

least well enough to justify the stop.”  Id.

Because Officer Patton was able to verify the anonymous female’s 

prediction concerning the route Collins would take, it was reasonable for him to 

believe her tip that Collins had drugs in the vehicle. Additionally, Officer Patton 

was aware of the recent tip from an Independence police officer that Collins’

vehicle was seen making frequent, brief stops at a house known for drug activity. 

An officer’s prior knowledge about a suspect can help to corroborate an 

anonymous tip. Morgan, 248 S.W.3d at 541. Based upon the totality of the 

circumstances, the tip contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify 
-9-

prolonging the stop to conduct a K-9 search of the vehicle. Therefore, we hold the 

circuit court properly denied Collins’ motion to suppress.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Kenton Circuit Court is 

affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Nicholas J. Alig 

Wilder, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron 

Attorney General of Kentucky

M. Brandon Roberts

Assistant Attorney General

Frankfort, Kentucky