Alexander v. State

• Docket Number: S-23-0034
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Citation: 540 P.3d 232
• Parties: Darrell Leonardo ALEXANDER, Appellant (Defendant), v. The State of WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

540 P.3d 232

Darrell Leonardo ALEXANDER, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The State of WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-23-0034

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

December 28, 2023

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; Sean H. Barrett, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.Argument by Mr. Barrett.

Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Kristen R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Donovan Burton, Assistant Attorney General.Argument by Mr. Burton.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

FENN, Justice.

[¶1]Darrell Alexander entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of cocaine.On appeal, he claims the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence law enforcement obtained after they entered his apartment without a warrant or his consent.We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] Mr. Alexander presents a single issue, which we rephrase as:

Did the district court err when it denied Mr. Alexander's motion to suppress the evidence against him based on a finding that his girlfriend had apparent authority to consent and gave implied consent for law enforcement to enter Mr. Alexander's apartment?

FACTS

[¶3] On March 13, 2022, patrol officers with the Cheyenne Police Department were dispatched to Darrell Alexander's apartment for a report of physical domestic violence.Three patrol officers responded to the call: Officer Cole Tompkins, Officer J. Miles, and Officer Brockton Hayden.When the officers arrived, they entered the stairwell leading to Mr. Alexander's apartment and found two women sitting on the stairs directly outside of the apartment.One was the alleged victim, E.B., and the other, an upstairs neighbor, identified herself as "just support."

[¶4] Officer Miles asked E.B. what happened, and she motioned to an injury on her face and stated Mr. Alexander was intoxicated and kept hitting her.The officers observed an injury on the left side of E.B.’s face near her eye.While E.B. was explaining what happened, Officer Hayden pointed to the apartment door and asked if Mr. Alexander was in the apartment.E.B. responded by opening the door to the apartment and calling Mr. Alexander's name.E.B. stepped further into the apartment and, while holding the door open, she said to Mr. Alexander, who was lying on the couch, "here you go, the police are here for you."

[¶5] Officer Miles stepped inside the apartment and positioned himself between Mr. Alexander and E.B.; Officer Hayden asked E.B. to step outside the apartment.E.B. moved back to the stairwell while Officers Hayden and Miles spoke with Mr. Alexander inside the apartment.Officer Tompkins questioned E.B. and the neighbor in the stairwell.

[¶6] Throughout the interview, Mr. Alexander denied any wrongdoing.At first, he claimed he did not have an argument with E.B., but then later admitted they had argued.Officers observed blood on Mr. Alexander's nose, but when officers questioned Mr. Alexander about the blood he declined to answer.Instead, Mr. Alexander said to the officers "this is my house" and "y'all come into my house [and] try[ ] to arrest me in my house."When officers asked if Mr. Alexander "live[d] with [his] girl,"he responded "no, this is my house.She doesn't live with me."Initially, Mr. Alexander told officers he had not been with E.B., but then stated he and E.B. were hanging out here "for a half an hour."Mr. Alexander told officers that E.B. has been his "girlfriend forever."

[¶7] Outside the apartment, E.B. and the neighbor gave their version of events to Officer Tompkins.Officer Tompkins learned E.B. and Mr. Alexander were in an on-again off-again relationship for 12 years.He further learned E.B. did not reside at the residence.

[¶8] The officers arrested Mr. Alexander and transported him to the Laramie County Detention Center.At the detention center, officers found "approximately 39 grams of suspected cocaine-based ‘crack’ cocaine" and "approximately 26 grams of cocaine" in powder form in Mr. Alexander's underwear.The State charged Mr. Alexander with domestic battery, strangulation of a household member, and two separate counts of possession of a controlled substance for each form of cocaine found in his possession.

[¶9] Mr. Alexander filed a motion to suppress"any evidence that flowed from" the search and seizure.He argued the officers violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionandArticle 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution when they entered his apartment without a warrant, his consent, or exigent circumstances.The State argued the officers did not violate Mr. Alexander's constitutional rights because they entered Mr. Alexander's apartment based on E.B.’s apparent authority and her implied consent to their entry when she opened the door to let them speak to Mr. Alexander.The district court denied the motion to suppress.The district court found the officers reasonably believed E.B. had authority to allow them into the residence, based on the facts known to them at the time they entered Mr. Alexander's apartment, and E.B.’s "behavior clearly indicated consent to enter the residence."Mr. Alexander entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance and stipulated to a sentence of 12 to 14 months.The State dismissed the remaining charges.The district court sentenced Mr. Alexander to 12 to 14 months to run concurrent with a separate federal sentence he was serving.Mr. Alexander timely appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶10] Mr. Alexander challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionandArticle 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.¹

In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we adopt the district court's factual findings unless those findings are clearly erroneous.We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's decision because the court conducted the hearing and had the opportunity to assess the witnesses’ credibility, weigh the evidence and make the necessary inferences, deductions and conclusions.On those issues where the district court has not made specific findings of fact, this Court will uphold the general ruling of the court below if supported by any reasonable view of the evidence.However, the underlying question of whether the search and seizure was constitutional is a question of law, which we review de novo.

Hawken v. State , 2022 WY 77, ¶ 12, 511 P.3d 176, 180–81(Wyo.2022)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

[¶11] Mr. Alexander argues the warrantless entry into his apartment violated the Fourth Amendment.He argues the district court erred "when it found the officers had a reasonable belief [E.B.] had the requisite authority to consent to the ... warrantless entry into his home[.]"Mr. Alexander also argues E.B. never consented to the officers’ entry into his apartment.

[¶12] The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. ..."U.S. Const. amend. IV.Physical entry into a person's "home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed."Hawken , 2022 WY 77, ¶¶ 14–15, 511 P.3d at 181(quotingLange v. California , 594 U.S. ––––, ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 2018, 210 L. Ed. 2d 486(2021) );( Fuller v. State , 2021 WY 36, ¶ 9, 481 P.3d 1131, 1133–34(Wyo.2021) )."Entry into a home, no matter how limited, constitutes a search."Id . at ¶ 15, 511 P.3d at 182(citingUnited States v. Jones , 701 F.3d 1300, 1317(10th Cir.2012) )."The [Fourth]Amendment thus ‘draws a firm line at the entrance to the house.’ "Id . at ¶ 14, 511 P.3d at 181(quotingLange , 594 U.S. at ––––, 141 S. Ct. at 2018 ).

[¶13]"Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless they are justified by probable cause and established exceptions."Id . at ¶ 16, 511 P.3d at 182(quotingFuller , 2021 WY 36, ¶ 9, 481 P.3d at 1134 ).A search conducted pursuant to a valid consent is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.Id .To prove valid consent, the government must show: "(1) the officers received either express or implied consent and (2) that consent was freely and voluntarily given."Id . (quotingUnited States v. Guillen , 995 F.3d 1095, 1103(10th Cir.2021), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 785, 211 L. Ed. 2d 489(2022) ).Mr. Alexander limits his argument to the district court's factual findings regarding the officers’ reasonable reliance on E.B.’s apparent authority to give consent and E.B.’s nonverbal gestures sufficiently implying consent.Thus, only the first prong of the consent analysis is at issue.See generallyid . at ¶ 17, 511 P.3d at 182(finding the second prong of the consent analysis was not at issue when there was no claim the police coerced a third-party to give consent).

I.Did the district court err when it found the officers reasonably relied on E.B.’s apparent authority to consent to their entry into Mr. Alexander's apartment?

[¶14]"It has been well established since Illinois v. Rodriguez , 497 U.S. 177, 110 S. Ct. 2793, 111 L. Ed. 2d 148(1990), that no Fourth Amendment violation occurs when police reasonably believe that a person who consents to a warrantless search has authority over the place or thing to be searched."Lemley v. State , 2016 WY 65, ¶ 15, 375 P.3d 760, 764–65(Wyo.2016)."[T]here is apparent authority to give a valid consent if the facts available to an officer at the time of the search permit an objectively reasonable, even if perhaps erroneous, belief that the consenting party has sufficient interest in or power over the thing to be searched to grant such consent."Id. at ¶ 16, 375 P.3d at 765(citations omitted);see alsoRodriguez , 497 U.S. at 186, 110 S. Ct. at...