Court Opinion

ID: 9897648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:19:33.069438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:56.798432
License: Public Domain

11/07/2023
        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                         AT NASHVILLE
                                October 10, 2023 Session

        STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JENNIFER MICHELLE CHILDS

                 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sumner County
                     No. 2021-CR-324 Dee David Gay, Judge
                     ___________________________________

                            No. M2022-01685-CCA-R3-CD
                        ___________________________________

The Defendant, Jennifer Michelle Childs, was indicted in the Sumner County Criminal
Court for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and filed motions to suppress evidence and
dismiss the indictment. The trial court held a hearing, ruled that the Defendant’s
warrantless arrest was illegal, and dismissed the indictment. The State appeals the
dismissal, arguing that the remedy for an illegal arrest is suppression of any evidence
obtained as a result of the arrest. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’
briefs, we agree with the State. Accordingly, the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment
is reversed, the indictment is reinstated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Reversed,
                                 Case Remanded

JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.
WEDEMEYER and KYLE A. HIXSON, JJ., joined.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Assistant
Attorney General; Lawrence Ray Whitley, District Attorney General; and Edward M.
Williams and Eric Mauldin, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellant, State
of Tennessee.

William L. Moore, Jr., Gallatin, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jennifer Michelle Childs.

                                         OPINION
                                          FACTS

       On November 1, 2019, Deputy Kyle Brandon Pierce of the Sumner County Sheriff’s
Department arrested the Defendant in her driveway for DUI, first offense, and possession
of Schedule II and V drugs. In June 2021, the Sumner County Grand Jury indicted the
Defendant for DUI, a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress
evidence, contending that her warrantless arrest was illegal because she did not commit an
offense in the officer’s presence, no exigent circumstances existed to justify his entry onto
her property, and he lacked probable cause for the arrest when the information he received
was based on a citizen caller’s report of a trespass. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a
“Supplemental Motion to Suppress and Dismiss Indictment” in which she reasserted the
arguments she made in the previous motion and claimed that the trial court should dismiss
the indictment.

        The trial court held a hearing on the motions on September 9, 2022. At the hearing,
Deputy Pierce testified that at 10:17 a.m. on November 1, 2019, he was dispatched to 114
Harsh Lane “for a possible reckless driver” call. According to the call, a person saw a
green Toyota pull into the driveway at 116 Harsh Lane, “[sit] there for a couple of seconds,”
and then drive across the property at 116 Harsh Lane and enter the driveway at 114 Harsh
Lane. Deputy Pierce said, “The original caller observed that the vehicle had been driving
in the middle of the roadway before entering the 116 address.” Deputy Pierce did not know
if the original call was a 911 call.

       Deputy Pierce testified that he arrived at 114 Harsh Lane about five minutes later.
A green Toyota was in the driveway, someone was sitting in the vehicle, and the engine
was “running.” The person in the car was sitting at an angle toward the center console, not
facing straight ahead. Deputy Pierce pulled his police vehicle fifteen to twenty feet into
the driveway, which was sixty to seventy-five feet in length. The blue light on his vehicle
was not turned on, and the green Toyota could have left the driveway. However, the driver
would have had to pull around Deputy Pierce’s vehicle in order to leave.

       Deputy Pierce testified that he walked to the driver’s door of the Toyota. The
Defendant was sitting in the driver’s seat and was texting on her cellular telephone. Deputy
Pierce stood beside her door for about two minutes to see if she would notice him. She did
not, so he knocked on her window, which “kind of startled her a little bit.” The Defendant
rolled down her window, and Deputy Pierce began speaking with her. He noticed that she
had “slightly” slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and dilated pupils. He also smelled the odor
of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the vehicle. He asked if the Defendant had been
drinking, and she told him that “she had a drink the previous night.” Deputy Pierce said
that he asked if she drove across her neighbor’s yard and that “it was more of a shrug and
giggle, like, yeah, yeah, you know, I’m sorry about that.”
                                            -2-
        Deputy Pierce testified that he asked if the Defendant would consent to field sobriety
tests and that she said yes. He administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus and asked if
the Defendant had any injuries or ailments that would interfere with additional field
sobriety tests. The Defendant said she had multiple fractures in her feet and was taking
multiple prescription medications. She told Deputy Pierce that she did not feel comfortable
taking further tests due to the injuries in her feet, so he did not administer any other tests
to her.

       Deputy Pierce testified that he asked the Defendant “where she was coming from.”
The Defendant told him that she worked at night in Madison and that she was returning
home from her job. Deputy Pierce said he thought the Defendant also told him that she
worked at a bar. He asked to search her vehicle, and she gave consent. During the search,
Deputy Pierce found “a bunch of pills that were not in prescription bottles.” However, it
was later determined that all of the pills had been prescribed to the Defendant. Deputy
Pierce told the Defendant that he was going to take her into custody for suspicion of DUI,
and he read an implied consent form to her. She consented to a blood test, so he transported
her to Sumner Regional Hospital, where he watched a nurse collect a blood sample. The
blood draw occurred about one hour, forty minutes after Deputy Pierce initially made
contact with the Defendant. Deputy Pierce then transported the Defendant to the Sumner
County Jail.

       On cross-examination, Deputy Pierce testified that he considered his response to the
original call to be “more of a welfare check” because “it’s not normal to drive across
somebody’s yard.” He did not know the Defendant lived at 114 Harsh Lane until he spoke
with her. He acknowledged that he did not see her driving or in control of a motor vehicle
and that she did not commit an offense or breach the peace in his presence. He also did
not suspect her of committing a felony, attempting suicide, causing a traffic accident, or
stalking. The Defendant’s toxicology report showed that her blood alcohol content was
0.048 gram percent, and Deputy Pierce saw no evidence of reckless driving.

       At the conclusion of the hearing, Defense counsel argued that the trial court should
dismiss the case because none of the exceptions listed in Tennessee Code Annotated
section 40-7-103(a), in which an officer can arrest a person without a warrant, applied in
this case. The State argued that Deputy Pierce verified details given by the caller, that he
was justified in making a brief investigatory stop, and that “DUI stops are notorious for
their arrests without warrants because they’re based on the officer’s observations at the
time that they make contact with these people.”

      On November 7, 2022, the trial court made oral findings of fact and ruled on the
Defendant’s motions. The trial court found that Deputy Pierce arrived at 114 Harsh Lane
and observed a green Toyota in the driveway, as the caller had described. The trial court
                                            -3-
further found that the Defendant was sitting in the vehicle with the engine running; that
Deputy Pierce noticed an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle; and that he noticed
the Defendant had slightly slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and dilated pupils. The court
found that the Defendant told the officer that she consumed alcohol the previous night, that
she admitted driving the vehicle, and that she admitted accidentally pulling into the wrong
driveway. The trial court noted, though, that Deputy Pierce did not see the Defendant
driving the vehicle. The trial court then stated as follows:

              The law is pretty clear. There have been certain exceptions created
       for DUIs, but it applies when there’s an accident and there’s probable cause,
       but, as hard as I have looked, I can’t find anything anywhere to disturb the
       rule of law that an officer can’t make an arrest without a warrant if the
       misdemeanor is not committed in his presence.

              ....

              I can’t see any way around the law that justifies this arrest. This
       offense was not committed in the presence of this particular officer, and
       under everything that I’ve read going way back into Tennessee jurisprudence
       there’s nothing that will allow this arrest without a warrant. Therefore, the
       motion is granted and the case will be dismissed.

On November 9, 2022, the trial court entered an order, stating that it was granting both of
the Defendant’s motions and dismissing the indictment.

                                        ANALYSIS

       The State appeals the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment, arguing that the
remedy for an illegal arrest is suppression of any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest.
The Defendant contends that the trial court properly granted her motions to suppress
evidence and dismiss the indictment. We conclude that the trial court erred by dismissing
the indictment.

       Initially, we note that the Defendant moved to suppress the evidence discovered
during her warrantless arrest but that the trial court did not address the suppression of any
evidence when it made its oral ruling or in the written order. Instead, the trial court only
dismissed the indictment. We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss the
indictment for an abuse of discretion. State v. Harris, 33 S.W.3d 767, 769-70 (Tenn. 2000).
“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court applies an incorrect legal standard or
reaches a conclusion that is illogical or unreasonable and causes an injustice to the party

                                             -4-
complaining.” State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tenn. 2007) (internal quotation and
citation omitted).

        Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section
7 of the Tennessee Constitution protect citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Generally, a warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable and, thus, violates
constitutional protections. See State v. Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1, 49 (Tenn. 2014). Evidence
derived from such a search is subject to suppression unless the State “demonstrates by a
preponderance of the evidence that the search or seizure was conducted pursuant to an
exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 865 (Tenn. 1998).
Eleven exceptions to the warrant requirement are listed in Tennessee Code Annotated
section 40-7-103(a). One such exception occurs “[f]or a public offense committed or a
breach of the peace threatened in the officer’s presence.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-
103(a)(1). However, the proper remedy for an illegal arrest is suppression of the evidence
seized as a result of the arrest, not dismissal of the indictment. State v. Baker, 966 S.W.2d
429, 432 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Smith, 787 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1989) (“Generally, an illegal arrest does not invalidate an indictment.”).

        Here, the trial court dismissed the case based on the trial court’s conclusion that the
Defendant’s warrantless arrest was illegal when the Defendant did not commit the offense
in the officer’s presence. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion
when it granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

                                      CONCLUSION

        Based upon our review, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. The indictment
is reinstated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.

                                                   _________________________________
                                                   JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., JUDGE

                                             -5-