Opinion ID: 1215390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the motion to suppress and the trial court's findings

Text: The defendant filed a motion to suppress that reads in part: Comes now the Defendant and hereby moves the court for an Order suppressing all illegally seized evidence, including but not limited to the following: 1. All Marijuana, Cannibis Moraceae, whether growing or dried; 2. All equipment, containers, tools used for cultivation of Marijuana; 3. All pictures taken at the scene; upon the grounds and for the reason that: there was no lawful warrant issued for this search and seizure, there was no probable cause for this search and seizure, and there was no lawful consent for this search and seizure, this search and seizure was not incident to any lawful purpose preceding arrest, and this search and seizure was not otherwise lawful.      Defendant further moves that the evidence be suppressed and that all information or knowledge gained either directly or indirectly as a result thereof be suppressed, and all statements be suppressed.      The trial court's findings in part read as follows: And the officers left the next morning, Deputy Prince [ sic: French], and Deputy Wagner, and the Reserve Officer Young not feeling that it was any great emergency. They went to the main residence and walked east of the residence and saw that the dogs were tied up on the front porch without feed or water and appeared  and it appeared one of them was on a very short tether. The door was open and they walked by the dogs and called for Jon Bridewell, entered the house, again called, he wasn't there, and noted that clotheses [ sic ]  clothes, dishes, paper, books and garbage, and dog droppings were about the house. It looked ransacked although there were no drawers pulled out on any of the dressers or any of the cabinets. They did notice the empty holster there. There was no evidence of any spent pistol cartridges, no blood, or any other signs of violence in the home. And they called out for him and couldn't find him. They went upstairs and called and couldn't find him. And then they went outside and did a  more or less surveyed the premises. And they went to the shop. Deputy French went to the shop with Dave Young, which they described as being 125 yards from the main residence. And they got to the shop. Apparently they approached from the south end and both of  but both the doors that were on the building were open, and heard a noise in there and determined that it was a small white goat mess  messing around in the shop building. And as they  But, did not call out for Bridewell. And they entered the south entrance. I understand these entrances are very large in the shop, large enough to accomodate [sic] a  a full-size truck. But, anyway they entered the northside of the shop and they  as they were in  and without calling out for Jon Bridewell. Then as they were entering the  the southside of the shop they walked near or past an open door where there was some light that was coming out and at that time Deputy French observed four marijuana plants and baskets and grow lights, and from his knowledge and training he test  he testified that he could readily identify them as marijuana and marijuana implements and pointed it out to Dave Young. At that time they called out to  for Mr. Bridewell and there was some commotion in that en  enclosed room containing the marijuana plants and he came out of the room and  and shut the door and asked them what their purpose was at the residence and they explained why they were there, and then they asked him to open the door and he said, No, you need a warrant. And they said, We don't need a warrant. We've seen it. And then he said, Okay. And he opened the door and at that time they  or at that time they again viewed the marijuana plants. And later testimony was some 354 in number.      When the officers went to the Bridewell residence they had no intention whatever to look for plants or any evidence of any misdeeds   .      Now, the evidence  Okay. All the  It appears to the Court that at the time this welfare check occurred and specifically with respect to entry into the garage, there was no evidence of anyone in need of immediate aid. There was no compelling need assist [sic] any persons within or any urgent need to render aid and assistance. The officers told themselves they'd  Themselves, they told us that they didn't consider the matter to be an emergency situation.  And so the Court finds that there was no legal and valid intrusion into the shop.       And it's my finding that exigent circumstances did not exist for the seizure of the plants at that time and that the proper procedure would have been for the officers to have gone back and received a Search Warrant to search the room. And so for that reason and the same way with searching the house and the pickups or any evidence of  of contraband. Mr. Bridewell was under arrest. He wasn't going anywhere and I don't think that the premises were in jeopardy. I don't think there was any [inaudible word] evidence that the evidence was going to be destroyed or that it would be lost. And so I'm going to allow the motion to suppress and will enter an order at this time.      (Emphasis added.) The suppression order provided: IT IS ORDERED the Motions are allowed and all seized items are suppressed. The majority believes that the trial court held that the initial entry to the defendant's premises was invalid and that the trial court ordered that all evidence  including the observation of the four marijuana plants and baskets and grow lights  be suppressed. I don't read the order that way. The trial court found that there was no legal and valid intrusion into the shop. I believe that the trial court did not intend to suppress, and did not order the suppression of the observation of the four marijuana plants, baskets and grow lights. However, I agree with the trial court that the later warrantless entry was impermissible. The officers were removing the hat of an assister upon the land to render assistance and putting on the cap of a law enforcement officer searching for evidence of a crime. Their privilege was at an end when they saw that the defendant was safe. Their subsequent actions constituted a warrantless search and seizure. The state, whose burden it was, failed to establish an exigency excusing the obtaining of a warrant.