Court Opinion

ID: 9951020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 15:18:27.625517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:00.003487
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 8, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                            Court of Appeals
                               NO. 2022-CA-0843-MR

ALEXANDER F. SAINS                                                       APPELLANT

              APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT
v.          HONORABLE WILLIAM ANTHONY KITCHEN, JUDGE
                     ACTION NO. 21-CR-00412-001

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                   APPELLEE

                                     OPINION
                                    AFFIRMING

                                    ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, GOODWINE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

TAYLOR, JUDGE: Alexander F. Sains brings this appeal from a June 8, 2022,

Final Judgment and Sentence of Imprisonment adjudicating him guilty of first-

degree trafficking in carfentanil or fentanyl derivatives, first-degree trafficking in a

controlled substance (cocaine), and first-degree trafficking in a controlled

substance (methamphetamine) and sentencing Sains to a total of seven-years’

imprisonment. We affirm.
             In 2021, Sains was indicted by a McCracken County Grand Jury upon

the charges of trafficking carfentanil or fentanyl derivatives, trafficking cocaine,

trafficking synthetic drugs, and trafficking in the second degree (ecstasy). Sains

subsequently filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from a warrantless entry

into his home. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court concluded that

exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless entry. More particularly,

the circuit court held:

                   In this case there were exigent circumstances
             which made the officers’ warrantless entry objectively
             reasonable. Officers arrived at Sains’ address, not to
             conduct a search, but to arrest him on the serious, violent,
             felony charges of First-Degree Burglary and First-Degree
             Strangulation after Detective Murphy interviewed the
             victim of the burglary and strangulation. Sains was
             known to be on federal probation, and he was thought to
             have been previously been [sic] involved in a double
             homicide. Officers reasonably believed that Sains was
             hiding inside his apartment with his girlfriend and her
             two children and that he was dangerous. It was not
             unreasonable for officers to elect to enter the apartment
             and immediately arrest Sains when any delay would
             afford him time to formulate a plan to resist or evade
             capture.

March 8, 2022, Order Denying Motion to Suppress at 4. Thus, the circuit court

denied Sains’ motion to suppress evidence.

             Following the circuit court’s denial of Sains’ motion to suppress,

Sains accepted the Commonwealth’s offer on a plea of guilty. Consistent

therewith, Sains entered a conditional guilty plea to first-degree trafficking

                                          -2-
carfentanil or fentanyl derivatives, first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance

(cocaine), and first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance

(methamphetamine). Sains was sentenced to seven-years’ imprisonment on each

of the three counts to run concurrently for a total of seven-years’ imprisonment.

Sains preserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

This appeal follows.

             The events leading to Sains’ arrest occurred on March 22, 2021.

Detective Jordan Murphy of the Paducah Police Department was assigned to

investigate a crime involving a first-degree burglary and first-degree strangulation.

After interviewing the crime victim at the hospital, Sains was identified as the

suspect. Sains, who was on federal probation in an unrelated case, had provided

his home address to probation and parole as 3160 Twinson Court, Apartment 217,

Paducah, Kentucky. Sains’ federal probation officer advised Detective Murphy

that Sains drove a maroon/burgundy Lincoln and that if the vehicle was at the

address, Sains was likely inside the apartment. Believing he had probable cause to

arrest Sains, Detective Murphy proceeded to the apartment complex on Twinson

Court. Due to the violent nature of the current felony charges and the double

homicide investigation involving Sains, several officers accompanied Detective

Murphy for the purpose of arresting Sains.

                                          -3-
             Upon arriving at the residence, Detective Murphy observed a

maroon/burgundy Lincoln parked near the apartment and verified that it belonged

to Sains. Detective Murphy then knocked on the door of Apartment 217, and

Sains’ girlfriend, Icesys Sykes, answered. Sykes denied that Sains was inside the

apartment and refused to allow the officers entry. Detective Murphy believed

Sykes was being untruthful about Sains’ presence. Detective Murphy observed

young children in the residence and detected a strong odor of marijuana. Officers

pulled Sykes and the young children out of the residence and then entered; Sains

emerged from a back bedroom. Sains was placed under arrest on the charges of

first-degree burglary and first-degree strangulation.

             While effectuating the arrest, officers observed narcotics in plain view

on the kitchen counter. Detective Murphy then obtained a search warrant for

Sains’ apartment based upon the strong odor of marijuana and the narcotics that

were in plain view. Officers subsequently uncovered fentanyl, cocaine, ecstasy,

and synthetic drugs leading to Sains’ subsequent indictment.

             Sains asserts the circuit court improperly denied his motion to

suppress evidence as the warrantless entry and subsequent search of the residence

violated his right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the

                                         -4-
Kentucky Constitution.1 Sains more particularly asserts that the circuit court erred

by determining that exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless entry

into Sains’ apartment.

              To begin, our review of a circuit court’s denial of a motion to suppress

evidence is pursuant to a two-prong test. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 610 S.W.3d

263, 268 (Ky. 2020). Under the first prong, we review the circuit court’s findings

of fact pursuant to the clearly erroneous standard. Id. Pursuant to this standard,

the circuit court’s “findings of fact will be conclusive if they are supported by

substantial evidence.” Id. Under the second prong, we review the circuit court’s

application of the law to the facts de novo. Id.

              It is a fundamental tenet of the Fourth Amendment to the United

States Constitution that an individual shall be free “to retreat into his own home

and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Payton v. New York,

445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980). It has been further recognized that a warrantless entry

into a residence is presumptively unreasonable. Id. at 586. However, a warrantless

entry into a residence may be lawful where the entry is justified by exigent

1
 The Kentucky Supreme Court has recognized that the protection afforded by Section 10 of the
Kentucky Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure is coextensive with the protection
afforded by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. LaFollette v. Commonwealth, 915
S.W.2d 747 (Ky. 1996), overruled on other grounds by Hunter v. Commonwealth, 587 S.W.3d
298 (Ky. 2019).

                                              -5-
circumstances. Id. at 590; see also Talbott v. Commonwealth, 968 S.W.2d 76, 81

(Ky. 1998) (citations omitted).

             The exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry into a

residence have been generally recognized in three types of instances: “(1) the

officers involved were in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect; (2) the suspect posed an

immediate threat to arresting officers or to the public; and (3) immediate police

action was necessary to prevent the destruction of vital evidence or to prevent the

escape of a known criminal.” Ingram v. City of Columbus, 185 F.3d 579, 587 (6th

Cir. 1999); see also Taylor v. Commonwealth, 577 S.W.2d 46, 48 (Ky. App. 1979)

(citation omitted). And, “an important factor to be considered when determining

whether any exigency exists is the gravity of the underlying offense for which the

arrest is being made.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 753 (1984).

             In the case sub judice, Sains was identified as the perpetrator in a

recent violent crime – first-degree burglary and first-degree strangulation. Shortly

before Sains’ arrest, Detective Murphy had interviewed the crime victim at the

hospital who identified Sains as the perpetrator. Detective Murphy also knew that

Sains was previously identified as a suspect in a double homicide investigation and

was on federal probation for an unrelated charge. These factors, combined with

the presence of the young children in the residence, led officers to believe Sains

posed an immediate threat to the officers and the public. The gravity of the violent

                                         -6-
offenses charged, the federal probation, and the previous double homicide

investigation all weighed in favor of determining that exigent circumstances

existed to justify the warrantless entry into Sains’ residence for purposes of

arresting him. Therefore, we conclude that the circuit court properly denied Sains’

motion to suppress the evidence seized.

             For the foregoing reasons, Final Judgment and Sentence of

Imprisonment entered by the McCracken Circuit Court is affirmed.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Molly Mattingly                            Daniel J. Cameron
Assistant Public Advocate                  Attorney General
Dept. of Public Advocacy                   Frankfort, Kentucky
Frankfort, Kentucky
                                           Courtney J. Hightower
                                           Assistant Attorney General
                                           Frankfort, Kentucky

                                          -7-