Opinion ID: 2612195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admission of the boots into evidence

Text: Prior to trial, the appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence consisting of a pair of Mr. Stamper's boots that were seized at the time of his arrest. At the suppression hearing, Stamper contended that this evidence was obtained in violation of the rights guaranteed him by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966), and Art. 1, §§ 4 and 11 of the Wyoming Constitution. [4] It was the position of the prosecution that the boots had been seized by the officers only after appellant had freely and voluntarily consented and that under our opinion in Parkhurst v. State, Wyo., 628 P.2d 1369 (1981), they were therefore admissible. The trial judge held that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Art. 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution and was therefore not subject to suppression. It was, however, further ordered that any statements elicited from appellant respecting the boots were not admissible since they were obtained in violation of appellant's rights as guaranteed under Miranda v. Arizona, supra. At the trial, the State, over objection of appellant's counsel, was permitted to introduce the boots into evidence but the witness was not permitted to testify about the circumstances surrounding their acquisition. Counsel's objection went to the lack of foundation for the introduction of the evidence in light of the trial judge's previous ruling regarding statements made by appellant at the time the boots were obtained. The trial judge overruled the objection, stating: All right. Now, you know, the jury knows and I know and everybody knows that the chances are more than likely Mr. Stamper was not barefoot that night. And I think we also know pretty conclusively that he was probably wearing something. And if those boots come in and that's all that's said, I'm going to assume that the jury's going to assume those are the boots he was wearing that night. I don't know what other assumption they could be involved with. That's the reason for the objection to begin with; am I correct? (Emphasis added.) Our review of the record supports appellant's contentions that his rights, as guaranteed by Miranda v. Arizona, supra, were violated and the trial court properly excluded that testimony. Given this conclusion, we must also agree with appellant that the boots were improperly admitted into evidence because sufficient foundation had not been laid for their admission. We consider this error to be prejudicial, requiring reversal of appellant's conviction. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments seizure issue raised by appellant stems from the events that occurred at the time Mr. Stamper was arrested. The testimony of the arresting officer introduced at the suppression hearing developed the following sequence of events. On July 11, 1981, the day of the victim's death, Sergeant Jack Coppock of the Fremont County Sheriff's office went to Dubois to interview witnesses to the fight that occurred between Smith and Stamper during the early hours of July 10, 1981. As these interviews were being concluded, another member of the sheriff's office and a game warden went to the appellant's residence to inquire about various threats that were presumed to have been made against appellant. Approximately 15 to 30 minutes later, Officer Coppock arrived at the Stamper residence. Appellant then informed Coppock that he had talked to his attorney who advised him to remain silent. At this point, according to Sergeant Coppock's testimony, appellant was placed under arrest but he was not advised of his Miranda rights. [5] Appellant then requested permission to lock some of the outbuildings on his property. The transcript from the suppression hearing then details the following sequence of events: A. Then Jack walked up to me about that time and said, `Would you pick up Pete's boots?' So I immediately turned to Pete and I asked him if we could have his boots. Q. What exactly did you say? A. I said, `Could we have your boots that was [sic] used on the night of the death of Jack Smith?' He said, `They're in the house. We will have to go in the house and get them.' Q. Did you do that? A. Yes. We followed Pete in the house there. Kay Boles and I. Q. Did you have a search warrant to search Mr. Stamper's house? A. No, sir. Q. Did you search Mr. Stamper's house? A. Pardon? Q. Did you search Mr. Stamper's house? A. We followed Pete and Pete went into a back room and looked and said he couldn't find them. Then he went into another room and we followed Pete in. He picked the shoes up and handed them to me and I brought them back out and gave them to Mr. Coppock. Q. Was there anything else said by either you or Mr. Stamper except what you related to us with regard to the boots being seized? A. No. Q. Did you say anything to him in the nature of, `You have to give them to me' or We'll get them anyway. We will get a warrant'? A. No. Soon after this sequence, the appellant was transported to the local police station. Having heard this testimony, the trial judge decided that under the totality of the circumstances the appellant had consented to the entry of his house by the officers and to the seizure of his boots. Appellant contests this finding and urges that a consent to search cannot be lawfully found to have occurred because he was under arrest at the time, had not been warned of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, supra, and was never informed of his right to refuse the search and seizure as this right is contemplated by our decision in Parkhurst v. State, supra. The State, on the other hand, argues that first of all no search occurred and, secondly, if a search did occur, it was conducted pursuant to appellant's consent. The main focus of the State's position is that the fact of appellant's arrest, together with the attendant lack of Miranda warnings, did not render appellant's consent invalid. The basic underpinning of any search and seizure question, [6] is that warrantless searches are assumed to be unreasonable per se, Tobin v. State, 36 Wyo. 368, 255 P. 788 (1927); State v. George, 32 Wyo. 223, 231 P. 683 (1924), and the burden is on the State to justify any search conducted in the absence of a warrant by convincing this court that one of the well-delineated exceptions to the rule is applicable. One exception to the unreasonable per-se assumption is that an individual can consent to a warrantless search of an area. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968); United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598, reh. denied 424 U.S. 979, 96 S.Ct. 1488, 47 L.Ed.2d 750 (1976). We dealt extensively with the consent exception to the warrant requirement in Parkhurst v. State, supra: The issue of the voluntariness of the consent may be properly resolved by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Fitzgerald v. State, Wyo. 1979, 601 P.2d 1015. On appellate review `we view the evidence most favorably to the party who prevailed below.' Fitzgerald, supra, 601 P.2d at 1018. Here the evidence was (1) the police officer asked Dennis if he could search the car; (2) Dennis replied he was not a lawyer; (3) Dennis was urged by his brother, Derrick, to go ahead and let the police officer make the search; (4) the officer indicated to Dennis that he did not have to be an attorney, he could consent to the search by himself if he wanted to; and (5) Dennis agreed to permit the search. Based on this evidence the trial court could reasonably have concluded that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his automobile. Therefore, we must uphold its decision and rule that the evidence obtained as a result of the search was admissible. The existence and voluntariness of a consent to search is a question of fact to be decided by the trial judge in the light of all attendant circumstances. Mares v. State, Wyo. 1972, 500 P.2d 530, 534, fn. 1. The trial judge, under the circumstances here, was fully justified in not suppressing evidence acquired by the officers. We find no duress or coercion, as did he. 628 P.2d at 1378. The above quotation points out that the main thrust of a consent to search is that the consent must be voluntary, and whether or not a consent was voluntarily given is to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, and United States v. Watson, supra. Some of the factors that can be considered are (1) the way the request to search is phrased; (2) whether the individual was told he could refuse the request; and (3) the coercive factors present. [7] The appellant attempts to distinguish Parkhurst because there the subjects had not been placed in police custody at the time the consent to search was requested. We agree with most of what appellant says. It is also clear, however, that the rules discussed in Parkhurst with respect to the State's burden in justifying a search are, under the case law, likewise applicable to individuals under arrest. The giving of Miranda warnings is not a prerequisite to obtaining a consent to search; see: State v. Oldham, 92 Idaho 124, 438 P.2d 275 (1968); State v. Stein, 203 Kan. 638, 456 P.2d 1 (1969); People v. Lowe, 200 Colo. 470, 616 P.2d 118 (1980); People v. Phillips, 197 Colo. 546, 594 P.2d 1053 (1979); State v. Rodriguez, 20 Wash. App. 876, 582 P.2d 904 (1978); People v. James, 19 Cal.3d 99, 137 Cal. Rptr. 447, 561 P.2d 1135 (1977); and the protections afforded by Miranda are only applicable to situations involving custodial interrogation, Daniel v. State, Wyo., 644 P.2d 172 (1982). However, the fact of custody and the failure to give the warnings required by Miranda are factors to be considered which indeed increase the State's burden of proving voluntariness. State v. Laughter, 128 Ariz. 264, 625 P.2d 327 (1980); State v. Ulriksen, 210 Kan. 795, 504 P.2d 232 (1972). It is well established, however, that a person in custody may give a valid consent to search and the inquiry must be whether a claimed consent is voluntary. United States v. Lemon, 550 F.2d 467 (9th Cir.1977). The thrust of the above holdings is that a consent to search is not testimonial and it is not evidence which can be described as being of a testimonial or communicative nature. United States v. Lemon, supra, 550 F.2d at 472; People v. Ruster, 16 Cal.3d 690, 129 Cal. Rptr. 153, 159, 548 P.2d 353, 359, 80 A.L.R.3d 1269 (1976); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). Given the above rules, appellant asks us to hold that his boots were unlawfully obtained because under the totality of the circumstances he cannot be said to have consented. Notwithstanding the merits of his contention, we believe, under the totality of the circumstances, appellant voluntarily permitted the officers to enter his house for the purpose of acquiring his boots. We reach this conclusion only after a long and arduous struggle, given the circumstances reflected in the record. Weighing against the State's claim of consensual search are the following facts: (1) appellant was under arrest; (2) appellant had not been informed of his Miranda rights; (3) the officer's question: Could we have your boots that was [sic] used on the night of the death of Jack Smith? was a form of interrogation; and (4) appellant was not told he could refuse. In favor of a finding of consent are: (1) no weapons had been or were drawn; (2) the atmosphere was one of cooperation, not compulsion; (3) appellant, although in custody, was not handcuffed or physically restrained; and (4) appellant freely and unequivocally agreed to get the boots. Under such circumstances, we must conclude that appellant voluntarily consented to the seizure of the boots. However, this conclusion does not mean that the conversation between appellant and the officers was also admissible or not subject to suppression. At trial, the State was permitted to introduce the boots into evidence over adamant and specific objection of appellant's counsel. This objection went to the fact that the statements surrounding the seizure of the boots were inadmissible since they were obtained in violation of appellant's Miranda rights. The record reflects the following colloquy on the events: Q. Sgt. Coppock, what transpired when you arrived at the scene, or at the defendant's residence? What did you do, sir? A. I was introduced to Mr. Stamper and we discussed a few things, I guess. Q. Do you remember any of those things? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. What was said? What did Mr. Stamper say, if anything? MR. MACKEY: Excuse me, your Honor, May we approach the Bench? THE COURT: Yes. (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had before the Bench and out of the hearing of the jury:) MR. MACKEY: Your Honor, the record is replete that Mr. Coppock made the arrest upon arrival. He said that in a motion hearing in this courtroom to the Court. He said in the preliminary hearing that he did not warn him of any of his rights to remain silent, to have a lawyer present during questioning, and he may have a lawyer appointed for him if he couldn't afford one, and so forth. All those associated warnings. Therefore, anything that Mr. Stamper said is inadmissible because he was not advised the opportunity to say nothing. But the reason this becomes so important now, your Honor, it leads into another preliminary matter. And that is that they will attempt to introduce the boots at this time, and at this point anything Mr. Stamper said he was not warned of his rights and they're not permitted to bring that in. MR. SORRELL: With regard to the boots, it was not testimony in nature. THE COURT: We're not on the boots. MR. MACKEY: Not yet. THE COURT: Let's get on what he said. MR. SORRELL: Okay. Well, do you want to know what it is Sgt. Coppock's going to say? THE COURT: No, because it doesn't matter. He arrested him. MR. SORRELL: At some point, yes. THE COURT: And did he advise him of his rights? MR. SORRELL: He never did advise him of his rights. THE COURT: Why not? MR. SORRELL: Well, because their feeling was if he wasn't going to question him there was no reason to advise him of his rights. And I had told him not to question him specifically. I had told him not to question him specifically and, so, they didn't advise him of his rights because they didn't intend to question him. And this particular statement I'm talking about is statements that Pete made more or less voluntarily before he was under arrest. They weren't necessarily responses to questions. THE COURT: Okay. Go back. The jury was then removed from the courtroom and the prosecution questioned the arresting officer. After this, the colloquy between counsel and the trial court continued: THE COURT: Well, we're going to get to the boots next, then? MR. MACKEY: Yes, sir. THE COURT: I've already ruled on the boots. I've ruled that the boots are admissible at a prior hearing in this matter, the suppression hearing. And you do not need to make any objection, Mr. Mackey, because as I said before, I believe that you have reserved the record with reference to the boots. Now, this information that this witness is going to give us right now has no relevance here at all. Where would you go from here? MR. SORRELL: Well, your Honor, I think that the statement from the defendant that he knew why Mr. Coppock was there has some relevance. THE COURT: Well, sorry. MR. SORRELL: Okay. THE COURT: The objection is sustained. There's no question that when the officer went to talk to him he was the focus of the investigation. There's no question about that, is there? THE WITNESS: No, sir. THE COURT: Okay. And, you know, that pretty much just takes care of it. MR. SORRELL: The other question, then, your Honor, leading up to the introduction of the boots, there were some conversations between Mr. Coppock and Deputy Aplund and Mr. Stamper. THE COURT: Well, tell me about that. I know about that from the prior proceeding, but I want it in this record right now. MR. SORRELL: The point I'm making, when Mr. Mackey made his objection I don't believe he addressed the effect that these conversations might have. He concentrated on the admission of the boots and whether or not the search was pursuant to consent and so forth, and he hasn't made any objection, although he had plenty of opportunity to do so with regard to the conversations that were had leading to the boots being turned over. THE COURT: Well, he didn't prior to the trial but he has now. Now, you don't have to make those objections prior to trial all the time. I said that any motions that you can perceive ought to be made within 10 days after the arraignment. And the motion on the boots was made. Now, a lot of times we used to go to trial without making any motions. We did everything right during the trial. But I think what you want to do is get the boots in. MR. SORRELL: That's right, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. That's no problem. You can just ask the witness if he got anything at the defendant's residence. MR. SORRELL: Without going into the conversation with regard to how they were obtained? THE COURT: Is that necessary? MR. SORRELL: Well, it's not really necessary, your Honor, if they can be entered into evidence without doing so. THE COURT: I don't see any problems. Do you, Mr. Mackey? MR. MACKEY: Well, yes I do, your Honor, but a good deal of the problem we have gone over already. I would additionally point out that we have now presented this evidence that he, Mr. Stamper, told him, `I know why you're here. My lawyer told me not to talk to you.' THE COURT: Wait a minute. That's not before the jury, though. MR. MACKEY: That's here now. And the next thing that happened and the next thing Mr. Coppock testified to at the time of the motion hearing was, `I then placed him under arrest.' Then he said, `I asked Mr. Aplund to ask Mr. Stamper for the boots he used that night.' That was the conversation, and I take it from the Court's ruling that the conversation would be inadmissible. And that goes back to the whole problem of the failure to advise and the failure of the foundation for the boots, and that would be the only thing in addition to the unconstitutional feature. THE COURT: That, you see, Mr. Mackey, you didn't bring to my attention at the time of the motion hearing; am I correct? MR. MACKEY: Yes. I had no idea what they were going to ask this witness to testify to. Now, we're here and I have to make the objections as they come up during the State's case. I recognize what the Court's saying. I need this in the record, and I see, your Honor, we not only have the Fourth Amendment problem of the unlawful search and seizure, we have the Fifth Amendment problem of using the statements made and the conversations taken at that time. And I did raise that issue at the motion hearing because I perceived it as a two-pronged problem. The Fourth Amendment, unlawful search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment, questioning without proper warnings. And both of those, your Honor, were raised in the motion, and I would submit that to the Court as well. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to let the boots in. And they're in. Now, about the statements and stuff, they're not necessary. Now, how do you want to get the boots in with the jury? MR. SORRELL: Your Honor, I'll just ask the witness if he took anything into evidence at the time of the arrest and ask him to identify the boots. There's kind of a problem because I'm not sure that the boots have much meaning without the statements because there's no way to connect them up with the defendant on the evening in question.  (Emphasis added.) The trial judge then brought the jury back, and the arresting officer testified as follows: BY MR. SORRELL: Q. Sgt. Coppock, when you were at Mr. Stamper's resident [sic], did you gain possession of any of the defendant's personal possessions? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what was that, sir? A. A pair of brown earth boots or logging boots. Q. I'm going to show you a pair of boots and ask you if you can identify these. Have you seen them before, sir? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. Where have you seen that particular pair of boots before? A. These are the boots that I was given by Mr. Stamper. MR. SORRELL: Your Honor, we would ask these be entered into evidence. THE COURT: They're received in evidence over the defendant's objection. As can be seen, the officer was only permitted to testify that he acquired a pair of appellant's boots at the scene of arrest, but the trial court excluded any reference to the conversation that occurred prior to their acquisition. Mr. Stamper now argues that error occurred in admitting the boots because no foundation connecting them with the incident in question was presented to the jury. We agree with the trial judge's exclusion of the statements and the appellant's assertion that the boots were then inadmissible for lack of proper foundation. As we noted previously, the fact that appellant voluntarily consented to the search is not necessarily determinative of the question which asks whether his statements were admissible at a later trial. Clearly, under the circumstances of this case, they were not. As we noted in Dryden v. State, Wyo., 535 P.2d 483 (1975), the warnings, as required by Miranda, were not only designed to protect an accused's right to counsel, but also his right against self-incrimination. The latter aspect of Miranda has obviated the conclusion that Miranda only applies to statements of a communicative or testimonial nature. See: People v. Renfrow, 193 Colo. 131, 564 P.2d 411 (1977); State v. Brotherton, 2 Or. App. 157, 465 P.2d 749 (1970); State v. McCurdy, 100 Idaho 683, 603 P.2d 1017 (1979); State v. Moreno, 21 Wash. App. 430, 585 P.2d 481 (1978); People v. Rucker, 26 Cal.3d 368, 162 Cal. Rptr. 13, 605 P.2d 843 (1980). Specifically, it was held in State v. Michael, 107 Ariz. 126, 483 P.2d 541 (1971) that even though involuntary statements of an accused were inadmissible the evidence obtained as a result was admissible. We are of the opinion that the question directed to appellant by Officer Aplund amounted to interrogation in violation of appellant's rights as guaranteed by Miranda v. Arizona, and Dryden v. State, supra. We come to this conclusion because the question not only asked appellant to get a pair of boots, but it asked him to get the pair of boots he wore on the night of the altercation with the victim. At that point, the appellant was under arrest and had not been informed of his rights. These circumstances required the trial judge to suppress the statements under our holding in Dryden v. State, supra. In essence, the police were asking appellant to provide them with evidence and a statement which would have the effect of incriminating him even though he had expressed his desire to remain silent. [8] Therefore, we hold the trial judge was correct in limiting the officer's testimony, and the State does not contend otherwise. Given the above holding, we must accept the appellant's second contention to the effect that, in the absence of the statements, the boots were inadmissible on foundational grounds. The prosecutor himself realized this problem when he stated:    There's kind of a problem because I'm not sure the boots have much meaning without the statements because there's no way to connect them up with the defendant on the evening in question. The prosecutor's revelation was directly on point because the record reflects that, in the absence of the questioned statements, the State was unable to provide such foundation as was necessary to connect the pair of boots to the defendant and the incident in question. The only witness to testify about the boots was the officer, and a reading of his testimony, as limited in scope by the trial judge, failed to provide any evidence from which the jury could conclude that the boots were the ones worn by appellant when he fought with John Smith. [9] In the absence of some testimony connecting the boots to the incident, it was error for the trial judge to permit their admission into evidence. We realize that questions of admissibility of evidence generally reside within the sound discretion of the trial court, and such decisions will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion. Sanville v. State, Wyo., 593 P.2d 1340 (1979); Jackson v. State, Wyo., 624 P.2d 751 (1981). Here, we are of the opinion that the admission of the boots was an abuse of discretion constituting prejudicial error requiring reversal. This conclusion will become more apparent as we discuss the second issue.