Opinion ID: 2273474
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Terry Frisk and Subsequent Search

Text: We first address the Commonwealth's contention that the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that a search more invasive than a Terry frisk was not merited in this case. Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section Ten of the Kentucky Constitution guarantee [t]he right of the people to be secure in their person, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Ordinarily, under both Constitutions, a search or seizure may not be had by the government unless a detached magistrate finds probable cause and issues a warrant. Helton v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 555, 560-61 (Ky.2009). Obtaining that warrant makes the search or seizure constitutionally permissible, absent other defects. Yet, there are limited exceptions where the government is not required to seek the permission of a detached magistrate before searching or seizing a person. In particular, an officer may arrest an individual without a warrant where he has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a felony. KRS 431.005(1)(c). [1] Additionally, where an arrest warrant has been issued for a suspect, that warrant will provide the arresting officer with all the valid probable cause needed to arrest that individualand the officer will need nothing more. KRS 431.005(1)(a). Searches are governed in nearly the same fashion as seizures. But, like the rule governing seizures, there are also exceptions, one being a search incident to arrest. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973). Under this exception, an officer may make a warrantless search of an arrested individual, the justification being the need to disarm the suspect and, equally important, the need to preserve evidence for later use at trial. Robinson, 414 U.S. at 234, 94 S.Ct. 467 (citing Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925); Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960)). And, there are circumstances when an officer may make a limited seizure and a limited search without either a warrant or probable cause. In Terry v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court carved out this exception to the probable cause requirement, permitting brief investigatory stops in circumstances where police officers have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). So long as the officer can articulate facts giving rise to his suspicion of criminal activity, and where his suspicions are reasonable under the circumstances, a brief stop of a suspect is constitutionally condoned. Id. Moreover, once the officer makes a lawful Terry stop, she may then frisk that individual where she is of a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed and presently dangerous. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 92-93, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979) (citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972)); Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-24, 88 S.Ct. 1868. During these Terry frisks, an officer may seize any contraband he finds, so long as the illegal nature of the contraband is immediately apparent to the plain feel of his hand. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). These brief Terry frisks often mature into full-blown probable-cause-based searches, particularly when an officer, while conducting a pat down, becomes immediately aware of contraband, and does so without manipulation of the object felt, but with the simple plain feeling of his hand. Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 376, 113 S.Ct. 2130. In other words, under the plain feel doctrine the object must be immediately identifiable as a weapon or contraband by a simple pat down before it may be legally seized. Id. Once recognized as a weapon or contraband, an officer may perform a more invasive search such as entering the pockets of the suspect or even placing his hands down a suspect's pants, wherever the immediately apparent contraband may be. See Murrell v. Commonwealth, No. 2003-CA-000436-MR, 2004 WL 1175782 (Ky.App. May 28, 2004) (it is constitutional for a police officer to place his hands inside an arrestee's pants and underwear to retrieve what he knows, upon plain feel and without manipulation, to be contraband). Moreover, once an illegal substance is identified on the suspect, the reasonable suspicion required to detain the suspect ripens into probable cause and an arrest may be made meriting an even further probable-cause-based search of other areas. United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 441 (5th Cir.2010). However, when a defendant alleges that the government collected evidence from his person in a fashion violative of the above-discussed rules, a suppression hearing is warranted. RCr 9.78. At this hearing, a court must consider whether the warrantless search was conducted in a manner that does not trample the Fourth Amendment. Normally, that inquiry questions the existence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, whatever the situation necessitates. And where the court determines that an officer conducted the search or seizure without the appropriate level of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, suppression of the discovered, incriminating evidence will be commanded. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); See also Young v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.2d 580 (Ky.1958). When required, an appellate court in this Commonwealth will review a trial court's suppression decision pursuant to RCr 9.78, which provides in part that, [i]f supported by substantial evidence the factual findings of the trial court shall be conclusive. If upon review of the factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, we conclude that the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, we then undertake a de novo review of that court's application of the law to those facts. Commonwealth v. Pride, 302 S.W.3d 43, 49 (Ky.2010). With these guiding principles in mind, we turn to the case at bar, and judge the correctness of the Court of Appeals' determination that the search in this case exceeded that which is permitted by Dickerson, supra , and, further, its determination that any exploration beyond a Terry frisk was improper. The Commonwealth asserts that the Court of Appeals erred when it determined that Officer Schwartz exceeded his authority to search Appellee's groin area and posits that the Court of Appeals did not provide the appropriate deference to the trial court's determination that the officer was immediately aware of the contraband in Appellee's underwear. Appellee responds by arguing that a search beyond a Terry frisk was not constitutionally permissible and was illegal under the facts in this case. As a result, Appellee contends that the Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the trial court's contrary determination. Having considered the circumstances of the search, the trial court's findings, and the parties' arguments, we hold that a search more invasive than a Terry frisk was appropriate in this case and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals' determination that the search exceeded constitutional limits. Here, Schwartz testified that: (1) after spotting Appellee in an area known for criminal activity; (2) being informed that Appellee was actively selling narcotics; (3) knowing from prior contact that Appellee was usually armed; and (4) because of his knowledge that there was an unconfirmed warrant for Appellee's arrest, he decided to wait for backup and then make contact with Appellee. [2] By the time backup arrived, Schwartz had lost sight of Appellee, so the officers then began to search the area. During their search, the officers encountered a frantic witness who informed them that Appellee was involved in a fracas inside a nearby apartment unit. As the officers approached the complex, Schwartz witnessed two women climbing out of the back window of the suspect apartment unit. The women stated that there was an altercation going on in the apartment and that they wanted to escape the situation. Schwartz and the other officers then proceeded to enter the apartment and could hear the confrontation upon arrival. As they proceeded through the apartment, Schwartz testified that he spotted Appellee toward the back of one of the rooms with his back-side partially turned toward Schwartz and with both hands down the front portion of his pants. All the while, another individual was yelling from inside the apartment It's in his crotchit's in his crotch! Schwartz, fearing that he had just witnessed Appellee conceal a weapon in his groin area, placed Appellee in hand cuffs and performed a Terry frisk. On direct examination, Schwartz testified that while performing the Terry frisk he felt a hard, rock-like substance in Appellee's groin area, and, based on his five years' experience as a police officer, determined it to be possibly crack cocaine. (emphasis added). In contrast, on cross-examination, Schwartz testified that upon feeling the golf ball sized object he knew it to be crack cocaine based on all [his] experience with it. (emphasis added). After hearing Schwartz's testimony, the trial court found that the officer immediately knew the item was contraband upon contact, that Schwartz did not manipulate the object when making his determination, or that there was insufficient evidence to show that the officer could have mistaken the object for a part of Appellee's anatomy. The court denied the motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order, concentrating on the officer's testimony that the object could possibly be crack cocaine. The Court of Appeals, also influenced by the fact that Schwartz had determined the absence of a weapon on Appellee when he decided to do a more invasive search, found that the object felt could have been numerous items other than contraband. Relying in part on our opinion in Commonwealth v. Jones, 217 S.W.3d 190 (Ky.2006), the Court of Appeals determined that further exploration beyond a Terry pat down was improper. We disagree and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's order denying Appellee's motion to suppress. Because the parties do not contest whether there existed reasonable suspicion to stop or frisk Appellee in this case, we begin our analysis with the determination of whether a search more invasive than a Terry frisk (a strip search) was permissible. Strip searches are not always appropriate and as noted above, even when a person is validly arrested [or validly arrestable, that] does not mean that he is subject to any and all searches that the arresting officer may wish to conduct. United States v. Mills, 472 F.2d 1231, 1234 (D.C.Cir.1972) (en banc). [3] This rule is specifically applicable to strip searches, as they are extremely invasive and in fact will sometimes be totally improper, repugnant, and illegal. See Stewart v. Lubbock County, 767 F.2d 153, 156-57 (5th Cir.1985) (strip searches conducted without reasonable suspicion that minor offenders had possession of contraband are unreasonable and violate the Fourth Amendment); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 638, 507 S.E.2d 661, 663 (1998); see also Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263, 1272 (7th Cir.1983) (strip searches prohibited where minor offenders are not inherently dangerous, are not being committed to a jail population but are merely being briefly detained, and officers have no reason to believe they are hiding weapons or contraband). Searches may not be conducted on the mere chance that desired evidence might be obtained. ( Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 769-70, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)); see also LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure § 3.5(c), at 177 (2d ed.1992) (routine strip searches cannot be employed against all classes of arrestees). But there are situations where strip searches are necessary and particularly so where the officer has probable cause to specifically search such a private area to preserve or prevent the destruction of evidence or to discover a concealed weapon. Such were the facts surrounding our holding in Williams v. Commonwealth, a decision based on events resembling those here. 147 S.W.3d 1 (Ky.2004). In Williams, the police conducted a strip search of the defendant on location in an apartment bathroom. Id. There, we addressed whether the strip search conducted was supported by probable cause. Id. In answering the question in the affirmative, we found that because the officers had reliable information that the defendant had hidden the contraband between his buttocks, and because the officers were reasonable in believing that the arrestee placed the evidence at risk of being lost, the search was supported by probable cause. Id. at 8. Here, the officer had more knowledge than what the officers had known in Williams. Schwartz was told that Appellee was actively selling drugs and knew from his prior experience [4] that Appellee tended to carry a weapon. With this knowledge, and during his investigation of a fracas that produced three fleeing witnesses (two from a rear window of the same unit housing Appellee) Schwartz faced what one would reasonably believe to be a dangerous situation and suspect. What is more, during this investigation, Schwartz witnessed Appellee place both hands down the front of his trousers while another occupant of the apartment unit was yelling, it's in his crotch! With this knowledge and while in a precarious environment, Schwartz placed Appellee in handcuffs and conducted a Terry frisk, later testifying that the frisk revealed a hard, rock-like substance he knew to be crack cocaine. [5] It was then that Schwartz decided to conduct a search more invasive than a Terry frisk. In a bedroom with the door partially opened, Schwartz and another officer faced the Appellee toward the wall and pulled down his pants and underwear. The officers then peered between Appellee's thighs, viewing Appellee's body from his back side. There, the two officers saw a plastic bag containing a white substance dangling from the front of Appellee's scrotum. Schwartz had probable cause to conduct a search more invasive than a Terry frisk in this case because he knew what he felt was crack cocaine. By placing the crack cocaine in a location that makes the contraband immediately apparent to the plain feel of an officer's open hand, Appellee essentially positioned the contraband in what can be analogized as in plain view of the officers. [6] We find this search directly supported by Dickerson and Williams, supra and hold that the reasonable search of an individual should not be held unconstitutional simply because the suspect chooses to hide contraband in a potentially embarrassing location and does so in a manner that makes the contraband immediately apparent to the plain feel of an officer's open hand. In as much as the Court of Appeals was influenced by the handcuffing of Appellee and thus considered his inability to make contact with the contraband, we find such a consideration unnecessary. Upon immediately identifying the contraband as crack cocaine, Schwartz's reasonable suspicion ripened into probable cause and he had the authority to arrest Appellee for any number of charges stemming from the possession of the crack cocaine, most of which are felonies. Based upon this probable cause alone, Schwartz was entitled to conduct a probable-cause-based search incident to arrest. [7] And when an officer has probable cause to conduct a warrantless arrest and search, we do not require the officer to make a determination regarding the probability of the arrestee's ability to destroy evidence on his person when performing a search incident to that arrest. Collins v. Commonwealth, 574 S.W.2d 296 (Ky.1978) (citations omitted). We hold that as long as the arrestee is searched incident to an arrest, officers may retrieve any evidence or weapon on his person whether or not within his reach. [8] A contrary conclusion would lead to an unsound result as it would prohibit officers from removing evidence that they know to be on an arrestee's person simply because the arrestee cannot access the evidence due to his being in handcuffs or otherwise restrained. And because the preservation of evidence is as equally important as officer safety, such a rule would further lead to the absurd conclusion that an officer cannot remove a weapon if that arrestee is restrained and unable to access the weapon on his person. We repeat that neither the Constitution of Kentucky nor the Constitution of the United States requires an officer to weigh an arrestee's probability of success of obtaining a weapon or destructible evidence before searching a suspect incident to an arrest. Id. at 297 (citations omitted).