Court Opinion

ID: 9961638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 14:07:57.560227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:13.571826
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: APRIL 12, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                  Commonwealth of Kentucky
                              Court of Appeals
                                 NO. 2022-CA-0858-MR

AUSTON STEWART                                                                APPELLANT

                     APPEAL FROM ROWAN CIRCUIT COURT
v.                   HONORABLE DAVID A. BARBER, JUDGE
                           ACTION NO. 17-CR-00058

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                        APPELLEE

                                        OPINION
                                       AFFIRMING

                                      ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CETRULO, GOODWINE, AND JONES, JUDGES.

CETRULO, JUDGE: Appellant Austin1 Stewart (“Stewart”) appeals a January

2018 order denying his motion to suppress evidence and the March 2022 jury

verdict and final judgment in Rowan Circuit Court finding him guilty of one count

of violating Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 510.155 and sentencing him to five

years of incarceration. After review, we affirm.

1
 The Appellant’s name appears as “Austin” on his judgment and sentence and all circuit court
documents, but as “Auston” on the Court of Appeals’ documents.
                                 BACKGROUND

             In March 2017, Detective Brian Cooper of the Kentucky State Police

(“Detective Cooper”) received a complaint of a juvenile receiving inappropriate

messages and photographs from Stewart, an adult male, through Facebook. With

permission from the juvenile’s mother, Detective Cooper took over the juvenile’s

Facebook account and continued the conversation undercover, posing as the

juvenile. During those conversations, Stewart asked for and sent sexually explicit

messages, photographs, and videos, and as a result, Detective Cooper obtained a

felony arrest warrant.

             In April 2017, Detective Cooper, accompanied by Winchester police,

arrested Stewart at his home, confiscated Stewart’s phone, then conducted a

custodial interview at the police station. One month later, the Rowan County

Grand Jury indicted Stewart on unlawful use of electronic means to induce a minor

to engage in sexual or other prohibited activities (KRS 510.155).

             In September 2017, Stewart filed a motion to suppress the police

custodial interview and the contents of his phone, and in January 2018, the circuit

court held a suppression hearing. At that hearing, Detective Cooper testified that

during their messaging, Stewart said he drove a white Chevy Impala. Detective

Cooper also testified that he obtained Stewart’s address off his state identification

                                         -2-
card2 and drove past Stewart’s home where he saw a white Chevy Impala in the

driveway. Also, Detective Cooper noticed a Winchester police cruiser parked in a

nearby driveway and stopped to ask the officer about Stewart. The neighboring

officer stated he knew Stewart personally and confirmed Stewart’s residence.

                 Accompanied by the Winchester officer, Detective Cooper went back

to Stewart’s residence a few days later to serve the arrest warrant. Detective

Cooper again saw a white Chevy Impala parked in the driveway. Prior to knocking

on the door, the detective sent Stewart a message through the Facebook account

they had been using to communicate. Detective Cooper testified that Stewart’s

mother answered the door and indicated that Stewart was home and in his bedroom

in the basement. Detective Cooper testified that he entered the home and went to

the basement. The detective testified that he asked Stewart, “Is that your phone?

Do you care if I look at it?” Detective Cooper testified that Stewart gave him

permission to look at his phone, and the detective saw, on the phone’s screen, the

message he had sent prior to entering the home. Then, Detective Cooper informed

Stewart that he was under arrest and took him to the Winchester police station.

                 During the suppression hearing, Stewart asked Detective Cooper how

he knew Stewart’s actual address because the address where he found and arrested

Stewart was different than the address on the arrest warrant. Detective Cooper

2
    He could not remember if it was a state identification card or driver’s license.

                                                   -3-
could not remember how or where he got the correct address, but indicated he had

confirmed Stewart’s actual address with the neighboring officer. Stewart asked

Detective Cooper if Stewart’s mother asked him to enter; the detective said the

mother indicated where Stewart was located and started walking in that direction.

He said, “She didn’t ask me to come in; she didn’t ask me not to come in either.”

The court denied Stewart’s motion to suppress.

                 In March 2022, the Rowan Circuit Court held Stewart’s trial. The

Commonwealth entered into evidence – without objection – photographs and

messages from the online conversations between Stewart and the juvenile and

between Stewart and the undercover Detective Cooper. These included filtered

photographs of Stewart’s face, naked photographs of Stewart (with his face clearly

visible), videos of him masturbating, and Stewart’s requests for the same from the

juvenile. The Commonwealth did not attempt to admit Stewart’s phone into

evidence at the trial.3 All the relevant photographs and videos admitted at trial

came from the device Detective Cooper used to communicate with Stewart and the

juvenile’s Facebook account.4

3
 Detective Cooper testified that police did not have the technology in 2017 to access the
Facebook application on Stewart’s phone. Police never accessed Stewart’s Facebook account.
4
    Stewart also sent the juvenile his Snapchat profile and username, “StewartAuston50.”

                                                -4-
               Detective Cooper testified that after the arrest, he transported Stewart

to the Winchester police station. At the station, Stewart signed a consent for police

to search his phone5 and agreed to an interview with Detective Cooper. The

Commonwealth admitted into evidence – without objection – both the phone-

search consent form and the custodial interview. In this interview, Stewart

admitted sending sexual videos of himself to a person he believed to be a 13-year-

old girl. He stated, “I knew I done wrong. . . . I know you got the proof . . . . I’m

not going to say [inaudible] I didn’t do it.”

               Stewart testified at trial that his phone was hacked, and he was not the

person communicating with the juvenile. He also testified that he never knowingly

signed a consent form allowing police to search his phone. After a 19-minute

deliberation, the jury found Stewart guilty and ultimately recommended five years

to serve in prison, which the trial court accepted. Stewart appealed.

                                          ANALYSIS

               On appeal, Stewart argues (A) the trial court erred in denying his

motion to suppress, and (B) the trial court committed palpable error by allowing

the Commonwealth to introduce evidence without laying foundation.

5
  Detective Cooper testified that Stewart – in front of the detective – willingly, knowingly signed
the phone search consent form.

                                                -5-
       A.     The trial court did not err by denying Stewart’s motion to
              suppress.

              The standard of review of the trial court’s denial of a
              suppression motion is twofold: first, the trial court’s
              findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and are
              deemed conclusive if supported by substantial evidence;
              and second, the trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed
              de novo.

Barrett v. Commonwealth, 470 S.W.3d 337, 340-41 (Ky. 2015) (citing

Commonwealth v. Marr, 250 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Ky. 2008)).

              “Substantial evidence is evidence of substance and relevant

consequence having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable

men.” Commonwealth v. Jennings, 490 S.W.3d 339, 346 (Ky. 2016) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., v. Golightly,

976 S.W.2d 409, 414 (Ky. 1998)).

              Here, the trial court made oral findings at the conclusion of the

suppression hearing and stated, “I’m going to deny the motion to suppress given

Barrett [supra] and the fact that Detective Cooper was told that [Stewart] was in

the home and he had a right to enter and place him under arrest.” On appeal,

Stewart argues the trial court erred. He asserts that Detective Cooper illegally

entered his home,6 and as a result, the court improperly admitted the custodial

6
  Stewart also argues the police illegally searched his bedroom and seized his phone. However,
this argument does not warrant further analysis because (1) while in his bedroom, Stewart
consented to Detective Cooper viewing his phone and Stewart does not deny this; (2) police

                                              -6-
interview because it was fruit of the poisonous tree.7 Conversely, the

Commonwealth again relies on Barrett to support the contention that Detective

Cooper did not enter the home illegally, because the detective had a valid arrest

warrant and “reason to believe” Stewart was in the home.

               The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and

Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution protect citizens from unreasonable

searches and seizures. While warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are

presumptively unreasonable, a valid arrest warrant permits police to enter a

suspect’s home when there is reason to believe the suspect is inside. Simpson v.

Commonwealth, 474 S.W.3d 544, 548 (Ky. 2015) (quoting Payton v. New York,

445 U.S. 573, 603, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1373, L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980)). More

specifically, “an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it

officers may seize and secure cell phones incident to arrest (Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373,
388, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2486, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014) (citations omitted)); (3) police officers, in
effectuating a valid arrest warrant, may search the area adjoining the place of a defendant’s arrest
(Kerr v. Commonwealth, 400 S.W.3d 250, 267-68, (Ky. 2013)); (4) Stewart gave written consent
for police to search his phone at the police station and Detective Cooper testified that Stewart
signed this form knowingly and willingly; (5) Stewart’s phone and its contents were not accessed
prior to his custodial interview and Stewart does not deny this; (6) Stewart’s phone’s Facebook
application was never accessed by police, and Stewart does not deny this; and (7) Stewart’s
phone was not admitted at trial, and Stewart does not deny this.

7
  Stewart’s brief states the address on the arrest warrant does not match the address where
Detective Cooper arrested Stewart. He does not specifically argue that such a discrepancy has
legal ramifications, nor does he cite any precedent that would suggest such a discrepancy
negated the validity of the arrest warrant. It is the appellant who must make the arguments, not
the appellate court. See Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(A)(2). Also, we note, the
warrant in question is an arrest warrant (for a person) not a search warrant (for a specific
location).

                                                -7-
the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is

reason to believe the suspect is within.” Barrett, 470 S.W.3d at 344 (citations

omitted). If Detective Cooper’s actions – entering Stewart’s home and arresting

him – were improper, as Stewart contends, there could be residual legal

ramifications based on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

              The exclusionary rule requires the suppression of any
              evidence that is either the direct or indirect result of illegal
              police conduct. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
              precludes not only the admissibility of evidence which is
              the direct result of a violation of the defendant’s rights, but
              also any evidence obtained by an exploitation of that
              violation.

Stevens v. Commonwealth, 354 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Ky. App. 2011) (citation

omitted).

              In Barrett, police received an anonymous tip that a suspect with

multiple arrest warrants was currently located at a particular home. 470 S.W.3d at

339. Dispatch “informed the officers that the last police contact with [the suspect]

had occurred at that address and that [the suspect] was listed as the homeowner.”8

Id. Before announcing themselves, police walked the perimeter of the home and

heard voices inside. Id. at 340. When police knocked on the front door, the voices

stopped, but no one answered. Id. Police continued to knock with a flashlight, and

8
 The home ultimately belonged to the suspect’s father, with the same name, but the suspect did
not challenge this at trial.

                                              -8-
due to the force of the knocks alone, the front door opened. Id. Police entered the

home and announced their presence. Id. A woman called from upstairs and came

downstairs as directed. Id. Upon questioning, the woman admitted that the

suspect police were looking for was hiding in an upstairs closet. Id. Police

searched for the suspect upstairs and while searching for him, they found drug

paraphernalia in plain view. Id. Police arrested the suspect and after a denied

motion to suppress, he entered a conditional guilty plea. Id. This Court affirmed

the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress, and the Kentucky Supreme Court

granted discretionary review. Id.

             Ultimately, Our Supreme Court clarified the “reason to believe”

standard relevant here:

             [P]olice executing a valid arrest warrant may lawfully
             enter a residence if they have reason to believe that the
             suspect lives there and is presently inside. Reason to
             believe is established by looking at common sense factors
             and evaluating the totality of the circumstances and
             requires less proof than does the probable cause standard.

Id. at 342 (citation omitted).

             Stewart implies the Commonwealth did not meet the Barrett “reason

to believe” standard, or that Barrett is distinguishable, because here, the officers

had “no reason to believe that [Stewart] was currently at the residence.” Simply,

we do not agree.

                                          -9-
             The trial court’s role was to look at “common sense factors” and the

“totality of the circumstances.” See id. Then our role is to review the trial court’s

decision to determine whether it was supported by substantial evidence. Id. at

340-41 (citation omitted). Here, Detective Cooper had a valid felony arrest

warrant and reason to believe Stewart was inside the home: a white Chevy Impala

matching the car Stewart said he drove was parked in the driveway; the

neighboring officer confirmed Stewart lived at that location; and Stewart’s mother

admitted to Detective Cooper that Stewart was in the home, in his basement

bedroom. The trial court found Detective Cooper entered Stewart’s residence with

a valid arrest warrant where he had reason to believe that Stewart lived and was

currently inside. These findings are not clearly erroneous because they are

supported by substantial evidence. Thus, Detective Cooper did not improperly

enter the residence, nor he did violate Stewart’s Fourth Amendment rights (or

Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution). We detect no fruit, poisonous or

otherwise. As there were no search and seizure violations, the custodial interview

was not fruit of a poisonous tree.

      B.     The trial court did not err when it allowed the Commonwealth to
             introduce the Facebook messages.

             Stewart argues that the trial court improperly allowed the

Commonwealth to admit the Facebook messages into evidence. “An appellate

court’s standard of review for admission of evidence is whether the trial court

                                         -10-
abused its discretion.” Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 313, 320 (Ky. 2006)

(citation omitted). “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s

decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal

principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999) (citations

omitted). However, here, Stewart did not preserve the issue, and we may only

review for palpable error.

             Under the Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure
             (RCr) 10.26, an unpreserved error may only be corrected
             on appeal if the error is both “palpable” and “affects the
             substantial rights of a party” to such a degree that it can be
             determined “manifest injustice resulted from the error.”
             For error to be palpable, “it must be easily perceptible,
             plain, obvious and readily noticeable.” [Brewer, 206
             S.W.3d at 349]. . . . Ultimately, “[m]anifest injustice is
             found if the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity,
             or public reputation of the proceeding.” Kingrey v.
             Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 824, 831 (Ky. 2013) (quoting
             McGuire v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 100, 112 (Ky.
             2012)).

Stephens v. Commonwealth, 680 S.W.3d 887, 898 (Ky. 2023) (quoting Young v.

Commonwealth, 426 S.W.3d 577, 584 (Ky. 2014)).

             Stewart argues Kentucky Rule of Evidence (“KRE”) 901(a) requires

authentication before admission of evidence, but here, the Commonwealth sought

to admit the Facebook messages without authentication. He asserts, “[t]here was

no evidence at trial that [Stewart] sent the messages to the alleged victim in this

case. . . . No foundation was laid as to [Stewart’s] ownership of the Facebook

                                         -11-
account and time and date of the messages cannot be determined from the record.”

Further, he asserts, “Facebook was never reached [] to properly link the account

that [Detective Cooper] was messaging to [Stewart’s] cellphone.”

             Conversely, the Commonwealth contends it properly authenticated the

Facebook messages; hence the trial court did not err. We agree.

             KRE 901(a) states, “The requirement of authentication or

identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence

sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent

claims.” “The proponent’s burden of authentication is slight, which requires only a

prima facie showing of authenticity to the trial court.” Johnson v. Commonwealth,

134 S.W.3d 563, 566 (Ky. 2004) (citation omitted). “The factual inquiry is

whether the evidence is what its proponent claims it to be.” Baker v.

Commonwealth, 545 S.W.3d 267, 275 (Ky. 2018) (citing Johnson, 134 S.W.3d at

566). A witness with knowledge may authenticate evidence by testifying that the

evidence is what it is claimed to be. Id. (citing KRE 901(b)(1)).

             Here, the messages contained photographs of Stewart’s face, sent both

before and after Detective Cooper took over the account. These photographs, as

the Commonwealth asserts, “clearly depicted and indicated it was Stewart’s

Facebook account.” Detective Cooper matched the photographs sent from the

Facebook account with the state’s license photo (and identification card) database,

                                         -12-
and Detective Cooper confirmed Stewart’s identity. Also, Detective Cooper

testified that the messages presented were an accurate description of the

conversations he had with Stewart, and the messages were consistent with the

conversations between Stewart and the juvenile. Detective Cooper testified that he

saw the message (that he sent immediately before entering Stewart’s house to

arrest him) on Stewart’s phone, confirming the Facebook account he was

interacting with was linked to Stewart’s current phone. Further, in the custodial

interview, Stewart admitted to Detective Cooper that he sent the messages and

videos to the juvenile, and other females.

               “Exercising its considerable discretion, a trial court may admit a piece

of evidence solely on the basis of testimony from a knowledgeable person that the

item is what it purports to be and its condition has been substantially unchanged.”

Kays v. Commonwealth, 505 S.W.3d 260, 270 (Ky. App. 2016) (citing Grundy v.

Commonwealth, 25 S.W.3d 76, 80 (Ky. 2000)). Whether there is enough evidence

of authenticity to admit evidence is within the discretion of the trial court.

Brafman v Commonwealth, 612 S.W.3d 850, at 866 (Ky. 2020). Here, Detective

Cooper’s testimony established the requisite authentication. Thus, the trial court

did not err.

                                          -13-
                                CONCLUSION

            In light of the foregoing, we AFFIRM the trial court’s January 2018

order denying Stewart’s motion to suppress evidence and the March 2022 jury

verdict and final judgment of the Rowan Circuit Court.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Derrick L. Harris                        Daniel Cameron
Lexington, Kentucky                      Attorney General of Kentucky

                                         Joseph A. Beckett
                                         Assistant Attorney General
                                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                                      -14-