Commonwealth v. Conner

• Decision Date: 16 December 2021
• Docket Number: 2020-SC-0099-DG
• Citation: 636 S.W.3d 464
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant v. Shuntrell D. CONNER, Appellee
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

636 S.W.3d 464

COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant

v.Shuntrell D. CONNER, Appellee

2020-SC-0099-DG

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

DECEMBER 16, 2021

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Daniel J. Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky, Matthew R. Krygiel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Molly Mattingly, Assistant Public Advocate.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE MINTON

We granted the Commonwealth's motion to review the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court's denial of Shuntrell D. Conner's motion to suppress evidence found in a drug dog sniff search during a traffic stop of the vehicle in which Conner was a passenger. The Court of Appeals determined that the investigating officer unconstitutionally extended the duration of the traffic stop to accommodate the dog-sniff search; as such, the search was unlawful and the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the search. We agree and affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision.

I. BACKGROUND

Officer Brandon Mayo stopped the van in which Conner was a passenger. During the stop, a drug dog alerted to the presence of drugs inside the van, and officers searched it, uncovering 6.5 ounces of marijuana. The Commonwealth later charged Conner with trafficking in marijuana,¹ tampering with physical evidence,² possession of drug paraphernalia,³ and being a first-degree persistent felony offender.⁴

Conner filed a motion to suppress all evidence discovered during the search. He argued that the traffic stop was unconstitutionally prolonged to obtain a drug sniff unrelated to the purpose of the traffic stop. As such, Conner argued that evidence seized during the search of the van should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal seizure. The Commonwealth argued in response that Officer Mayo developed reasonable, articulable suspicion during the traffic stop, giving rise to an investigation into possible illegal drug activity. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion.

At the hearing, the Commonwealth called Officer Mayo as its only witness. He testified that, at 8:12 p.m. on November 12, 2016, he pulled over a silver van after it swerved in the road. Mayo recognized the van as one previously operated by Conner. This time, Joey Garmon operated the van, and Conner rode in the front passenger seat. When Officer Mayo approached the van, he recognized Conner from having pulled him over a couple of weeks before this incident. He testified that he learned during this earlier traffic stop that Conner was not supposed to be driving.⁵ Officer Mayo asked Garmon why he was swerving, and Garmon told him he swerved to miss a pothole. Officer Mayo then asked for Garmon's license, proof of insurance, and registration, and he also collected Conner's license.

Officer Mayo testified that he returned to his cruiser and ran a records check of Garmon's license. Officer Mayo stated that he "had heard previous that Mr. Conner was trafficking some type of dope, I had heard methamphetamines, at that time it sparked my interest to investigate further." Officer Mayo testified that, while sitting in his cruiser, he observed Conner shoving a plastic bag underneath something in the backseat. Officer Mayo testified that, at this time, "it became an investigative stop for supposedly [sic] drugs."

At the hearing, the defense played footage of the traffic stop as captured on Officer Mayo's body camera.⁶ The video did not show Officer Mayo's first encounter with the van when he approached it and asked about Garmon's swerving. At the beginning of the video, Officer Mayo was standing behind the stopped van, speaking with two other officers. Officer Mayo told the other officers that "the passenger is supposed to be trafficking meth ... he's got some boxes and shit back there." Officer Mayo then checked his watch, noted the time was 8:15 p.m., and returned to the driver's side window of the van. He then said to Conner, "I need to talk to you for a minute brother, can you get out?" Conner explained that he recently had surgery, and he asked not to get out. When Garmon asked what was going on, Officer Mayo replied, "I just need to talk to him for a second." Garmon again asked whether there was a problem, and Officer Mayo replied, "yeah here's the problem" and explained that he had information about drugs.⁷ Officer Mayo then asked whether there was anything in the van that he needed to know about, and Conner replied that he was moving his clothes. Officer Mayo then asked whether he could take a look, and Conner declined, explaining that it was not his van, and there was nothing but clothes in the back. Officer Mayo responded "I ain't [sic] worried about no clothes, ... as long as there's no dope in here, I don't care." Conner again declined, stating that the van belonged to his friend, Michelle Martinez. Officer Mayo then said "I can get a dog up here, he can search, that's what I'm saying. It's up to you."

After Garmon declined the search and Officer Mayo asked about Conner's relationship with Martinez, Officer Mayo then stated, "All right, well give me a few minutes and we'll get the dog up here in a little bit." Officer Mayo then returned to his cruiser. This encounter—from the time Officer Mayo asked Conner to get out of the van so they can talk to the time he left the van's driver's side window—lasted about two minutes.

When he returned to his cruiser, Officer Mayo requested a canine unit through his radio and ran a check on Garmon's license.⁸ Officer Mayo testified that, while on the radio, he saw Conner shove something underneath something in the backseat. He then returned to the driver's side window of the van and asked Conner what he was moving in the backseat, and Conner replied that he was just throwing something around. He again requested to search the van, and Conner again declined. Officer Mayo then said, "You're telling me right now that there's dope in the van because you don't want me to search it. That's what you're telling me. The dog's going to come up here and hit on it if there is, that's what I'm saying." After Conner denied that there was anything in the van, reiterating that the van is not his, Officer Mayo said, "I've been told a hundred times you're slinging dope right now. That's what I've been told." After some more discussion,⁹ Officer Mayo said, "All right, well we'll get a dog and as soon as he gets up here and does his thing you all will be good to go."

Officer Mayo then walked to the rear of the van and explained to one of the other officers who had arrived at the scene that they have to call another dog unit and that Conner is not letting him search the vehicle because "there's dope back there."¹⁰ Officer Mayo then returned to his vehicle and placed a phone call, stating, "Where you at? I need your dog." This encounter—from the time Officer Mayo asked Conner what he moved in the back seat to the time Officer Mayo returned to his vehicle and placed the second call for a drug dog—lasted approximately six minutes.

The body camera footage did not capture anything for a while following this point. But Officer Mayo testified that he placed a call to another canine officer, Officer Nolan, who informed Officer Mayo that Conner had an active arrest warrant.¹¹ Officer Mayo testified that he then detained Conner pursuant to the warrant. The drug dog arrived at 8:34 p.m.—approximately seventeen minutes after Officer Mayo's request to Officer Nolan and thirty-one minutes after the traffic stop began.

Officer Mayo testified that the dog alerted on the driver and passenger sides of the van. The ensuing search of the van yielded 6.5 ounces of marijuana, of which Conner claimed ownership. Officer Mayo testified that, at that point, he conducted a field sobriety test of Garmon, which Garmon passed. Officer Mayo released Garmon and had the van towed away. In total, the stop lasted approximately an hour and twenty minutes.

Following the hearing, the trial court denied Conner's motion to suppress, concluding that Officer Mayo had not unlawfully prolonged the stop to accommodate the dog sniff. First, the trial court determined that any extension of the stop after Officer Mayo's discovery of Conner's arrest warrant was justified by his execution of the warrant. Second, the trial court found that Officer Mayo's knowledge of Conner's potential drug dealing, criminal history, and his witnessing Conner's movement inside the van during the stop provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to prolong the stop.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding that Officer Mayo did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion of drug activity at the time he extended the stop to call for a drug dog. The Commonwealth moved this Court for discretionary review, which we granted.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"For motions to suppress the fruits of a warrantless search, ‘[t]he Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing the constitutional validity’ of that search."¹² "When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, the findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and the conclusions of law are reviewed de novo."¹³ That is, "we affirm the trial court's findings of fact if those findings are supported by substantial evidence."¹⁴ And, "if the court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, we then conduct a de novo review of the court's application of the law to the facts."¹⁵

Further, because "the factual findings of the trial court in a suppression matter are conclusive so long as they are supported by substantial evidence ... a reviewing court should take care both to review findings of historical fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers."¹⁶ "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence; that is, evidence sufficient to induce conviction in the mind of a...