Court Opinion

ID: 9756544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:36:46.12116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:26.637835
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. My primary tice, with the majority opinion is that it improperly and erroneously states, “The testimony of the officers during the suppression hearing was inconclusive as to when the exigent circumstances arose.” The majority is wrong. The majority places a great deal of emphasis on inferences drawn from some of the testimony Officers Dennis Roberts and Jim Culp gave at the suppression hearing. However, the record clearly reflects testimony on which the trial judge relied in finding the officers had probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify their entry into the mobile home to effect Mann’s arrest. For example, Officer Roberts testified that, as the officers entered the porch area, the trailer door was standing open, and' when Roberts heard someone running, the officers announced that they were the State police. In addition, Officer Culp testified that, as he and Roberts entered the porch, they called out “police.” Culp averred that he remembered hearing the commode flush. (Abs. testimony pp. 4, 6, 11). Based on the foregoing and other testimony before the trial judge at the suppression hearing, the judge quite properly made the following findings and ruling: THE COURT: The Court has viewed the exhibits and my notes regarding the testimony taken herein at both the prior hearing and today’s hearing. The Court finds that under the circumstances the issue presented is whether or not there was an exception to the warrant for entry into Mr. Mann’s house to apply to this fact situation. The only exception that applies to this situation would be exigent circumstances and whether or not those existed, so that the warrant requirement was not applicable because of the exigent circumstances. There are exceptions to both the warrant requirement and exceptions to the knock and announce rule which has been dealt with in the case Mr. Spain provided, United States of America versus Mendoza. One of the exceptions to the knock and announce rule is exigent circumstances as well. In this case, Mr. Colvin [defense counsel] argues that the police didn’t know that Mr. Mann was committing a crime. The issue is not beyond a reasonable doubt proof in the circumstances. The issue is as Mr. Spain [prosecutor] argued, I think, probable or reasonable cause. And, secondly, the police were in possession of probable or reasonable cause that Johnny Mann was in possession of methamphetamines in violation of Arkansas law when they went to his house. They [the officers] knew there were methamphetamines, they had been delivered, and they as a body were in possession of sufficient facts to lead to a reasonable conclusion of that probable cause. They entered a porch, which was opened, the door was open and the porch as well and the contents of that front porch were visible to anyone on the outside. And at the time they were on this porch, they announced that they were police. They then heard someone running in the trailer. That led to the reasonable conclusion that Mr. Mann, who they knew was in possession of these drugs at this time, was trying to do something to dispossess himself of them or destroy them. They then entered the trailer with this knowledge, this information. The Court finds that it was reasonable that they concluded that the evidence was attempting to be destroyed and thus that there were exigent circumstances concerning their entry that a warrant was not required. So, therefore, the motion to suppress the permission to search which flowed therefrom and eventually led to the removal of the commode ... that they busted and the drugs being found is denied. The Court further finds that the statement made by Mr. Mann was made with full advice and knowledge of his rights and after he knowingly, voluntarily, relinquished those rights and that his statement is voluntary. The motion to suppress his statement is also denied. (Emphasis added.) It is settled law that, in reviewing a ruling denying a defendant’s motion to suppress, this court makes an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances and views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State; we reverse only if the trial court’s ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Griffin v. State, 347 Ark. 788, 67 S.W.3d 582 (2002). Here, the trial court found that, as the officers approached the open door of the porch, Officer Culp heard footsteps inside the trailer home, announced “there’s someone running,” and then the officers entered the open door of the trailer. When the officers heard someone running in the trailer, they reasonably concluded Mann was trying to destroy the evidence. The majority court simply ignores the trial judge’s reasonable analysis of the evidence that supports his ruling to deny Mann’s motion to suppress. Instead, this court substitutes its own discretion and weighing of the evidence to reach a result contrary to the one reached by the trial judge. The majority is clearly wrong in doing so. The majority also posits that the investigating officers themselves had created the exigent circumstances, and, therefore, those exigent circumstances could not be relied upon to justify this warrantless entry. Again, I disagree. Our law is settled that the destruction of evidence is an established exigent circumstance that can justify a warrantless entry. Norris v. State, 338 Ark. 397, 993 S.W.2d 918 (1999). However, the majority court cites holdings in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for the proposition that exigent circumstances created by the police officers themselves cannot be relied on to justify a warrantless entry. United States v. Duchi, 906 F.2d 1278 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Johnson, 904 F.2d 443 (8th Cir. 1990). The majority court submits that the officers in this case could have reasonably foreseen that their decision to approach Mann’s residence without a warrant, immediately after completing a controlled delivery of methamphetamine, would likely result in an attempt to destroy evidence. Relying on Duchi, the majority contends that the officers had the opportunity to secure a warrant to search Mann’s trailer; it opines that the officers had probable cause to believe Mann was committing the crime of possession of a controlled substance, since the package he was handed was accepted by him. Our court of appeals has held that the exigency may arise at any time, and the fact that the police might have obtained a warrant earlier does not negate the possibility of a current situation’s necessitating prompt police action. See Clinkscale v. State, 13 Ark. App. 149, 680 S.W.2d 728 (1984) (quoting from Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974)). In the present case, the officers were placed in the position of having lawfully intercepted a package which contained methamphetamine, but the package was addressed to a Clark Nuss, 424 Ashley 81 West, Hamburg, Arkansas. The officers subsequently discovered Mann resided at the 424 Ashley 81 address, and that Mann and Nuss had previously lived in Crescent City, California. Because the package bore a Crescent City return address, the Arkansas officers could not know if the package was sent to Nuss or whether Mann would accept it. Consequently, they decided to make a controlled delivery of the package. It was at this stage of the controlled delivery that the officers could be certain they had probable cause. This case is most similar to the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Johnson, supra. There, the agents knew neither whether the address they credited the package label with describing was the intended address, nor whether the occupant of that address would be willing to accept the package. The Johnson court, relying on United States v. Palumbo, 735 F.2d 1095 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 934 (1984), stated that officers conducting an investigation “were not required to seek a warrant as soon as they had probable cause to suspect a conspiracy to distribute cocaine [but] could legitimately wait in order to gather additional evidence.” The majority court here attempts to challenge the officers’ failing to obtain a warrant immediately after Mann approached his regular mail carrier and asked if there were any packages for Mann, and his carrier said another carrier may possibly have his mail. Of course, even if the officers suspected at this point that Mann was referring to the Nuss package, they could not be sure until he accepted the package. It was only when Mann accepted the Nuss package that they had probable cause. As in the holding of Palumbo, the officers were not required to seek a warrant at that moment. In conclusion, it is my strongly-held view (and that of the trial judge, I might add) that the officers had not created the exigency in this case. Instead, Mann himself caused the officers to enter the trailer when he started running and the toilet was flushed after the officers identified themselves as they approached the porch leading to the open door of the trailer. Cf. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) (where Court upheld a “no knock” entry into Richards’ motel room, finding the actual circumstances — Richards’ apparent recognition of the officers combined with the easily disposable nature of the drugs — justified the officers’ ultimate decision to enter without first announcing their presence and authority). The court in Johnson made the following statement which I think is insightful: Indeed, it is for the very purpose of evading detection that such fictional names and disarranged addresses are frequently employed by those who deal in drugs. If Johnson and his associates fear warrantless entries into their homes, they would be well advised to address their drug shipments to real people at clearly identifiable addresses. Id. at 447. In the present case, Mann obviously was awaiting a delivery of methamphetamine, but he attempted to disassociate himself from the package containing the methamphetamine by the use of Clark Nuss’s name. The trial judge was correct in denying Mann’s motion to suppress, and I would affirm the judge. Dickey, C.J., joins this dissent.