Hale v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 05 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2022-CA-0460-MR |
| Parties | TONY L. HALE APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Russell J. Baldani Whitney D. Rowe Lexington Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Daniel Cameron Attorney General of Kentucky Matthew F. Kuhn Solicitor General Rachel A. Wright Assistant Solicitor General Frankfort, Kentucky
BEFORE: EASTON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
Tony L. Hale appeals the Fayette Circuit Court's judgment convicting him of a second or greater offense of trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. We reverse and remand for the reasons stated herein.
On August 18, 2020, Detective Brendan Hazelwood and other detectives of the Lexington Police Department were conducting surveillance in areas of reported drug activity in east Lexington. While seated in his unmarked vehicle, Detective Hazelwood observed a white GMC SUV operated by Hale, an individual unknown to him, stop at the corner of 7th and Jackson Streets during the late afternoon or early evening daylight hours. An unknown male subject approached Hale's vehicle, entered the front passenger side for a short period, and then exited the vehicle. The unknown male subject then conversed with Hale by the vehicle's side for a short time before Hale drove away.
Detective Hazelwood and the other detectives followed Hale to Barksdale Drive where Hale parked his vehicle and was observed entering a residence. While inside the residence, Hale remotely locked his vehicle multiple times using his key fob and, after a short stay, proceeded back into his vehicle and left. Based on these observations, Detective Hazelwood became suspicious Hale was engaged in drug-related activity. At approximately 7:00 p.m., Detective Hazelwood radioed for an available patrol unit to initiate a traffic stop on Hale's vehicle. Officer Dan Hempel and Officer Zachary Flowers received the call and initiated a stop on Hale's vehicle for failure to use a turn signal while changing lanes on southbound Interstate 75.
A K-9 unit was requested by an unknown officer to come to the scene of the stop while Officer Hempel and Officer Flowers issued a citation. Detective Hazelwood took a nearby exit and remained off scene while maintaining radio contact. Soon after Hale's vehicle was pulled over, Officer Hempel approached to inform Hale he was stopped for a lane change violation. When asked where he was coming from, Hale indicated his parents' house on Linton Road. At some point thereafter, Officer Hempel observed Hale to appear nervous and to be exhibiting shaking hands. Due to Hale's inability to produce proof of insurance, Officer Hempel returned to his patrol unit to generate a traffic citation for a lane change violation and no proof of insurance. Detective Hazelwood radioed Officer Hempel and told him to "take [his] time" generating the citation as the K-9 unit was enroute.
Ultimately, Officer Hempel returned to Hale's vehicle, provided the citation, and informed Hale he was "free to go." Officer Hempel walked back toward his patrol unit and conversed with Officer Flowers who reminded him they had an ongoing narcotics investigation. This prompted Officer Hempel to return to Hale's vehicle for additional questioning. When again asked where he had come from, Hale indicated he came from his parents' house on Linton Road. After some follow up questions, Officer Hempel then informed Hale to "hang on a second."
Shortly thereafter, Hale found proof of his insurance, and Officer Hempel agreed to void the no insurance charge and re-issue the citation.
Officer Hempel walked back to his patrol unit to begin reissuing a new citation, and the K-9 unit, which recently arrived on scene, ultimately conducted a sniff search of Hale's vehicle. While Officer Hempel worked on reissuing the citation, the K-9 unit alerted to the presence of drugs and a search of Hale's vehicle resulted in the discovery of cocaine, marijuana, and $3,000.00 in cash.
Hale was indicted on October 13, 2020, and a motion to suppress evidence from the vehicular search was filed on February 26, 2021. Hale argued the police stopped his vehicle without sufficient cause to initiate a traffic stop, and in the alternative, unlawfully prolonged it to conduct a drug investigation. A suppression hearing was held on June 29, 2021, during which Detective Hazelwood, Officer Hempel, and Officer Flowers testified. Video produced from body cameras worn by Officer Hempel and Officer Flowers was played at the hearing.
The Fayette Circuit Court denied the motion to suppress and entered oral findings stating that observed lane change violations provided cause for the traffic stop, and its extension was justified based on occurrences after the stop. The trial court found Hale's nervousness and statements regarding his prior whereabouts provided the officers with reasonable suspicion during the stop when combined with Detective Hazelwood's prior observations. On July 6, 2021, the trial court entered a written order denying the motion to suppress for the "reasons stated on the record." On October 22, 2021, Hale filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to suppress citing Commonwealth v. Clayborne, 635 S.W.3d 818, 821 (Ky. 2021), which was finalized on October 20, 2021. On January 28, 2022, the trial court denied the motion to reconsider finding the facts of Clayborne to be distinguishable.
On February 25, 2022, Hale preserved his right to appeal the denial of suppression and entered a conditional guilty plea to a second or greater offense of trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Hale was sentenced to ten years in prison on April 14, 2022. This appeal followed.
A review of a denial of a motion to suppress involves a twofold determination of whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence along with a de novo review of the trial court's legal conclusions. Kavanaugh v. Commonwealth, 427 S.W.3d 178, 180 (Ky. 2014). If the trial court's fact findings are supported by substantial evidence, they are conclusive. Id. "Substantial evidence is evidence, taken alone or in light of other proof, that a reasonable mind would find sufficient to support a conclusion." Cox v. Commonwealth, 641 S.W.3d 101, 113 (Ky. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Commonwealth bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence at a suppression hearing. Cook v. Commonwealth, 826 S.W.2d 329, 332 (Ky. 1992).
Police can stop and briefly detain a person, or a vehicle, to investigate potential criminal activity if the officer has reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Blake, 540 S.W.3d 369, 373 (Ky. 2018) (citation omitted). While requiring less than a probable cause showing "reasonable suspicion is more than an unparticularized suspicion or hunch" and "requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop" based on articulable facts. Bauder v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 588, 591 (Ky. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Priddy, 184 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Ky. 2005). When scrutinizing these investigatory detentions, often dubbed Terry[1] stops, a reviewing court should review the totality of the circumstances with a "wide lens" when determining if they establish reasonable suspicion. Bauder, 299 S.W.3d at 591; Priddy, 184 S.W.3d at 511 (citation omitted).
On appeal, Hale asserts three challenges to his detention. First, there was insufficient cause to initiate a traffic stop. Second, if it was a lawful traffic stop, it was prolonged past the point it concluded or should have concluded. Third, it was prolonged without independent reasonable suspicion to await the arrival of the K-9 unit. We examine each argument individually.
"It has long been considered reasonable for an officer to conduct a traffic stop if he or she has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred." Davis v. Commonwealth, 484 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Ky. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Hale argues the police did not have sufficient cause to initiate a traffic stop on his vehicle for a lane change violation. For support, Hale points to the absence of any body camera video supplied at the suppression hearing capturing any violation and argues the officers' testimony asserting they personally observed the violation is unreliable.
We will note the original body camera video played at the suppression hearing was not formally submitted and admitted into the record before us nor was it played in its entirety. Therefore, we can only rely on the video segments played during the suppression hearing. We must further rely on contextualizing testimony concerning certain segments played due to some difficulty in discerning the audio.
Officer Hempel and Officer Flowers both testified that in accordance with departmental policy, their body cameras are not activated until their emergency lights are turned on. Officer Hempel additionally testified, upon activation, the body cameras undergo a "buffering mode" during which they "don't capture everything." The trial court found this explanation was sufficient, and the record does not demonstrate anything undermining the officers' credibility. We defer to the trial court's finding the officers observed the violations and had cause to initiate a traffic stop. See Pitcock v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 130, 132 (Ky. App. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial