Opinion ID: 1335938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Encounter At Police Headquarters

Text: Once Officer Sigler arrived at police headquarters, it was incumbent upon him to inform the defendant that he was not under arrest, that he was free to leave, and that he did not have to answer questions. Syl. pt. 2 Mays, supra . See Farley, 192 W.Va. at 254-55 n. 10, 452 S.E.2d at 57-58 n. 10 ([t]elling a suspect that he/she is not under arrest and is free to leave usually is sufficient to prevent a finding of custody and will circumvent a finding of de facto arrest), citing State v. Wyant, 174 W.Va. 567, 328 S.E.2d 174 (1985); State v. Stanley, 168 W.Va. 294, 284 S.E.2d 367 (1981). The record shows that Officer Sigler did not give the advice that we held was crucial in both Mays and Jones. Guided by these decisions, however, the facts of this case are unique and do not conclusively lead to a finding that a de facto arrest occurred because Officer Sigler failed to comply with the pronouncements of Mays and Jones. The central conduct complained of here, the search of the defendant's person, did not rise from direct interrogation of the defendant. The search resulted from information learned about the defendant through NCIC as a result of his presence at police headquarters. In determining whether an unlawful de facto arrest resulted from encounter in this case, we hold that, when police have a citizen at police headquarters, without probable cause and he or she has not expressly consented to being there and the police have failed to inform him or her that he or she is not under arrest and that he or she is free to go and does not have to answer any questions, then an unlawful seizure has occurred. See Mays, 172 W.Va. at 489-90, 307 S.E.2d at 658; Jones, 193 W.Va. at 385-86, 456 S.E.2d at 466-67; State v. Jameson, 194 W.Va. 561, 565, 461 S.E.2d 67, 71 (1995) ( per curiam ). Determining that the defendant was the victim of a seizure amounting to an arrest does not end the matter. This case ultimately turns on the application of W. Va.Code, 49-5-8(b)(3). Pursuant to W. Va. Code, 49-5-8(b)(3), a juvenile may be taken into custody without a warrant or court order if the law enforcement official has reasonable grounds to believe that the child is a runaway without just cause from the child's parents ... and the health, safety and welfare of the child is endangered[.] Although we have not had occasion to apply this provision, we did hold in Ellsworth J.R., 175 W.Va. at 70, 331 S.E.2d at 509, that within the context of W. Va.Code, 49-5-8(b), the term `custody' is equivalent to an arrest[.] Therefore, W. Va.Code, 49-5-8(b)(3), permits a juvenile to be arrested based upon reasonable grounds that he is a runaway and his health, safety, and welfare are endangered. We will examine separately the reasonable ground and endangered elements of the provision. In determining whether Officer Sigler had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was a runaway, the evidence was as follows: During cross-examination, Officer Sigler testified that about a week before the arrest of the defendant, he saw a checklist which indicated a petition had been filed against the defendant. Officer Sigler testified that when he saw the defendant in front of Doc's Tavern he did not radio headquarters to determine whether the petition was still outstanding on the defendant. [10] There was no evidence to indicate that Officer Sigler recalled what the substance of the petition was, i.e., what conduct by the defendant caused the petition to be filed. Under these circumstances, it does not appear that Officer Sigler had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was a runaway at the time he ordered the defendant to get into his cruiser. At most, Officer Sigler had reasonable grounds to believe that some type of petition had been filed against the defendant. Once Officer Sigler arrived at police headquarters with the defendant, he ran a check on him through NCIC. Officer Sigler testified the check revealed a runaway petition had been filed against the defendant. The defendant informed Officer Sigler that he had been home and was no longer a runaway. Officer Sigler did not believe the defendant and informed him that he was under arrest. We believe that Officer Sigler had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was a runaway based upon the information he obtained through NCIC. [11] Although the data from NCIC furnished Officer Sigler with reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was a runaway for arrest purposes, W. Va.Code, 49-5-8(b)(3), also requires the juvenile's health, safety, and welfare be endangered. The Legislature made clear in its enactment of this provision that the mere fact that a juvenile is a runaway is insufficient to take a child into custody without a warrant or court order. The provision demands that a showing be made that the runaway's health, safety, and welfare are also in jeopardy. At the time Officer Sigler obtained reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was a runaway, the defendant was at police headquarters. Nothing in the record mildly suggests the defendant's health, safety, or welfare was endangered while he was at police headquarters. There was no evidence the defendant was (1) behaving in a self-destructive way, (2) exposed to imminent physical harm, (3) was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or (4) was incoherent and confused. Under this strict application of the statute, Officer Sigler had no basis to arrest the defendant. In the absence of these circumstances the Legislature contemplated that an officer would call the parents of the juvenile and not place him or her under arrest. Upon learning that the defendant was a runaway, Officer Sigler announced to the juvenile that he was under arrest. Since W. Va.Code, 49-5-8(b)(3), was not satisfied here, it was necessary for Officer Sigler to have probable cause to arrest the defendant. Syl. pt. 6, Duvernoy, supra . Officer Sigler did not have probable cause; therefore, the actual arrest was unlawful. Officer Sigler then informed the juvenile that a search of his person would take place. Under a lawful custodial arrest, a full search of a suspect is valid. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467, 477, 38 L.Ed.2d 427, 441 (1973) (in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a `reasonable' search under that Amendment). However, we have determined that no valid arrest of the defendant occurred. [12] The defendant was searched and crack cocaine was found on him. Since this search was unconstitutional, the evidence which was subsequently seized... was inadmissible and should have been suppressed. State v. Hlavacek, 185 W.Va. 371, 379, 407 S.E.2d 375, 383 (1991).