Court Opinion

ID: 9404549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 14:05:46.777092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:14.878610
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JUNE 16, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals
                              NO. 2022-CA-0036-MR

BRIAN K. CLARK                                                        APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT
v.                HONORABLE BRUCE T. BUTLER, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 19-CR-00151

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                APPELLEE

                                     OPINION
                                    AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: JONES, KAREM, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

LAMBERT, JUDGE: Brian K. Clark appeals from the Meade Circuit Court’s

order denying Clark’s motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.

             On August 19, 2019, Clark was involved in a fatal motor vehicle

accident wherein he crossed the center line on U.S. Highway 60 in Meade County

and collided head-on with another vehicle, killing one passenger, and critically

injuring the other. Clark also suffered injuries in the collision. He had to be

extricated from his vehicle. He was transported by helicopter from the scene of the
accident to the University of Louisville Hospital, where he remained for several

days.

             There was no opportunity for field sobriety testing for impairment or a

blood draw from Clark before he was airlifted from the accident scene. Thus, on

September 5, 2019, Officer Brandon Wright (Meade County Deputy Sheriff) filed

an affidavit for a search warrant to obtain “any and all University of Louisville

Hospital medical records of Brian Clark, . . . beginning August 19, 2019, and

ending August 22, 2019.” The search, executed the following day, resulted in the

Hospital releasing a digital copy of Clark’s records. The certified medical records

revealed that Clark had a blood alcohol content of 0.282 (over three times the legal

limit of 0.08) after Clark was admitted to the Hospital.

             The case was transferred to circuit court after the Commonwealth

sought an indictment. On September 9, 2019, the Meade County grand jury

returned an indictment charging Clark with the following offenses: murder;

wanton endangerment, first degree; assault, first degree; and operating a motor

vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, first offense. Clark was arrested

on September 16, 2019. Thereafter, the Commonwealth filed a subpoena duces

tecum, seeking Clark’s medical records from the Hospital’s Health Information

Management Department. The Hospital’s custodian of records complied with the

                                         -2-
subpoena on October 24, 2019, by releasing the identical information sought by

Officer Wright’s search warrant.

               Clark moved to suppress the medical records obtained via search

warrant. He asserted that the warrant was neither based on probable cause nor

sufficiently particular, and that it was also an improper means by which to obtain

certified medical records. After hearing the parties’ legal arguments, the circuit

court denied Clark’s suppression motion; the order denying the motion was entered

on August 21, 2021.

               Clark ultimately accepted the Commonwealth’s offer on a plea of

guilty to all charges included in the indictment except for murder, which was

amended to the lesser included offense of first-degree manslaughter.1 He reserved

his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The circuit court entered

its order of judgment and sentence of the Commonwealth’s recommended thirteen

years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.

               We begin by enunciating our standard of review, namely:

                     An affidavit supporting a search warrant must
               “‘reasonably describe the property or premises to be

1
   Clark’s guilty pleas were entered pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct.
160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970), which “permits a conviction without requiring an admission of
guilt and while permitting a protestation of innocence.” Wilfong v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d
84, 103 (Ky. App. 2004). “The entry of a guilty plea under the Alford doctrine carries the same
consequences as a standard plea of guilty. By entering such a plea, a defendant may be able to
avoid formally admitting guilt at the time of sentencing, but he nonetheless consents to being
treated as if he were guilty with no assurances to the contrary.” Wilfong, 175 S.W.3d at 102
(internal quotation marks omitted).

                                               -3-
             searched and state sufficient facts to establish probable
             cause for the search of the property or premises.’” Guth
             v. Commonwealth, 29 S.W.3d 809, 811 (Ky. App. 2000)
             (emphasis added) (quoting Coker v. Commonwealth, 811
             S.W.2d 8, 9 (Ky. App. 1991)). The test for probable
             cause is whether, under the totality of the circumstances,
             a fair probability exists that contraband or evidence of a
             crime will be found in a particular place. Moore v.
             Commonwealth, 159 S.W.3d 325, 329 (Ky. 2005). When
             reviewing the issuance of a search warrant, we must give
             great deference to the warrant-issuing judge’s findings of
             probable cause and must not reverse unless the court
             arbitrarily exercised its discretion. Id.

Beckam v. Commonwealth, 284 S.W.3d 547, 549 (Ky. App. 2009) (emphasis

omitted). “An appellate court reviewing a lower court’s denial of a motion to

suppress evidence utilizes a clear error standard of review for factual findings and

a de novo standard of review for conclusions of law. Welch v. Commonwealth, 149

S.W.3d 407, 409 (Ky. 2004).” Tucker v. Commonwealth, 611 S.W.3d 297, 299

(Ky. App. 2020).

             In its order denying Clark’s motion to suppress, the Meade Circuit

Court concluded:

                    In the instant case, Officer Wright asserted in his
             affidavit for the search warrant that [Clark] was heard at
             the scene of the collision making the statement that he
             had “too much to drink,” and that [Clark’s] speech was
             slurred. Officer Wright’s affidavit further asserted that
             [Clark’s] “vehicle crossed the center line and hit a
             vehicle head on injuring one person and killing the
             other.” The affidavit indicated that [Clark] “was taken to
             the University of Louisville Hospital,” and the warrant
             sought “any and all University of Louisville Hospital

                                         -4-
             records” for Clark. Under a totality of the circumstances,
             and with appropriate deference to the initial probable
             cause determination, the Court concludes that the search
             warrant furnished probable cause that evidence of a
             crime would be found in [Clark’s] medical records.
The circuit court went on to address Clark’s allegations regarding particularity

about the offense or the matters sought, concluding that the warrant was

sufficiently particular in both aspects. See Hedgepath v. Commonwealth, 441

S.W.3d 119 (Ky. 2014).

             We likewise find no deficiencies. Nor do we fault the circuit court for

referencing an unpublished decision of this Court. Ample published case law

supports the circuit court’s denial of Clark’s motion to suppress.

             Moreover, we fail to discern error when these very same medical

records were properly sought, obtained, and admitted into the record by the

subsequent subpoena duces tecum. In his reply brief, Clark concedes that he was

not challenging the records obtained through the subpoena, and that “[t]he defense

opted to challenge the warrant instead.” We agree with the circuit court’s

assessment that, “even if the Court were to grant [Clark’s] motion to suppress his

medical records obtained via the search warrant, that would have no effect on his

medical records obtained via the subpoena duces tecum.”

             The Meade Circuit Court’s order denying Clark’s motion to suppress

is affirmed. We thus affirm Clark’s convictions.

                                         -5-
          ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Jared Travis Bewley      Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky      Attorney General of Kentucky

                         Kristin L. Conder
                         Assistant Attorney General
                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                        -6-