Hawken v. State

• Decision Date: 16 June 2022
• Docket Number: S-21-0194,S-21-0195
• Citation: 2022 WY 77
• Parties: NANCY MAY HAWKEN, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

2022 WY 77

NANCY MAY HAWKEN, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).

Nos. S-21-0194, S-21-0195

Supreme Court of Wyoming

June 16, 2022

Appeal from the District Court of Crook County The Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant:

Ronald E. Wirthwein, The Nick Carter Law Firm, Gillette, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Wirthwein.

Representing Appellee:

Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Donovan Burton, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Burton.

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

1

FOX, CHIEF JUSTICE.

[¶1] Nancy Hawken entered a conditional plea of guilty to felony driving under the influence. On appeal, she claims the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained after law enforcement entered her home without a warrant or consent. We reverse and remand.

ISSUES

[¶2] We restate the issues on appeal as follows:

1. Did the district court err when it denied Ms. Hawken's motion to suppress the evidence against her based on its conclusion that her husband consented to entry of her home

2. Does the unlawful entry of the Hawken home require suppression of the evidence obtained as a result of that entry?

FACTS

[¶3] On December 15, 2020, Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper Josh Undeberg received a report that a vehicle had crashed in a ditch near Sundance, Wyoming, and that the driver appeared intoxicated. When he arrived at the scene, he opened and checked the vehicle and found no one in it, but he detected a strong odor of alcohol. He ran the vehicle's plates and discovered it belonged to Nancy Hawken, who lived about three miles away.

[¶4] Trooper Undeberg drove to Ms. Hawken's home, and as he approached, he observed tire tracks in the fresh snow where it appeared a vehicle had turned out of the driveway and onto the highway. From this he deduced that Ms. Hawken had received a ride home. He then parked and encountered a man standing outside the home, who identified himself as Tyler Hawken, Ms. Hawken's husband.

[¶5] Trooper Undeberg asked to speak with Ms. Hawken, and Mr. Hawken replied that she was not home. Trooper Undeberg said he knew she was home because he had talked to the person who dropped her off, though that was untrue. Mr. Hawken asked what was going on, and Trooper Undeberg told him about the car. Mr. Hawken said he knew about the accident and had been about to go look at it. Trooper Undeberg repeated that he wanted to talk to Ms. Hawken, and Mr. Hawken said he would go get her.

[¶6] Mr. Hawken walked toward the house and entered the home's mudroom. Mr. Hawken did not invite the trooper to follow him into the mudroom, and the record contains no indication Trooper Undeberg requested permission to follow him. Nonetheless, Trooper

2

Undeberg followed, and as he stepped into the house, Mr. Hawken said, "Wait right here." Trooper Undeberg testified:

There were a couple statements made as we were going into the house; he was in the house, I was coming into the house, and he said, "Wait right here," and then there was - so I - I stopped inside of the mudroom and there was one point when he was going through the other door, he said, "I'll be right back."

[¶7] Trooper Undeberg waited in the mudroom as requested. He heard Mr. Hawken talking with a woman he assumed was Ms. Hawken, and heard him say, "The sheriffs are here. You need to go out and talk to them." When the conversation between the Hawkens became heated, Trooper Undeberg called Mr. Hawken back to the mudroom to avoid a possible altercation. Mr. Hawken returned, and Ms. Hawken followed him.

[¶8] Trooper Undeberg told Ms. Hawken to come outside with him to his car so they could talk about what happened with her vehicle. Ms. Hawken complied, and, because she had trouble maintaining her balance, Trooper Undeberg helped her walk to his car. After questioning her, Trooper Undeberg arrested her for driving under the influence. Ms. Hawken's breathalyzer test at the detention center indicated a blood alcohol concentration of .260%.

[¶9] The State charged Ms. Hawken with driving under the influence, driving with a suspended license, driving without an interlock device, and failure to maintain a single lane. It also moved to revoke her probation.

[¶10] Ms. Hawken filed a motion to suppress, claiming that Trooper Undeberg unlawfully entered her home, and that any statements or evidence gained as a result of that unlawful entry should be suppressed. The district court found that Mr. Hawken voluntarily consented to Trooper Undeberg's entry into the home and denied her motion.

[¶11] Ms. Hawken entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of felony driving under the influence and agreed to admit the allegations against her in the probation revocation proceeding. The court revoked her probation and reinstated the sentence of thirty to sixty months for that offense. It sentenced her to a term of five to seven years imprisonment for the felony driving under the influence count, to be served concurrently with the reinstated sentence on her probation revocation. Ms. Hawken timely appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶12] Ms. Hawken challenges the district court's denial of her motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

3

In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we adopt the district court's factual findings unless those findings are clearly erroneous. Rodriguez v. State, 2018 WY 134, ¶ 15, 430 P.3d 766, 770 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Jennings v. State, 2016 WY 69, ¶ 8, 375 P.3d 788, 790 (Wyo. 2016)). 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." Kunselman v. State, 2008 WY 85, ¶ 9, 188 P.3d 567, 569 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Hembree v. State, 2006 WY 127 ¶ 7, 143 P.3d 905, 907 (Wyo. 2006)). "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." Feeney v. State, 2009 WY 67, ¶ 9, 208 P.3d 50, 53 (Wyo. 2009) (citing Neilson v. State, 599 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Wyo. 1979)).

Pryce v. State, 2020 WY 151, ¶ 16, 477 P.3d 90, 94-95 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Brown v. State, 2019 WY 42, ¶ 10, 439 P.3d 726, 730 (Wyo. 2019)). However, the underlying question of whether the search and seizure was constitutional is a question of law, which we review de novo. Fuller v. State, 2021 WY 36, ¶ 8, 481 P.3d 1131, 1133 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Robinson v. State, 2019 WY 125, ¶ 20, 454 P.3d 149, 156 (Wyo. 2019)).

DISCUSSION

I. Trooper Undeberg did not have consent to enter the Hawken house.

[¶13] Ms. Hawken contends the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress because the record does not support a finding that Mr. Hawken consented to Trooper Undeberg's entry into the Hawken home. The parties agree that Mr. Hawken did not expressly consent to Trooper Undeberg's entry. The question, in this case of first impression for this Court, is whether the district court could conclude that he gave implied consent to Trooper Undeberg's entry.^[1]

[¶14] The United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the role of the Fourth Amendment in preserving the sanctity of the home.

4

The place to start is with our often-stated view of the constitutional interest at stake: the sanctity of a person's living space. "When it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals." Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). At the Amendment's "very core," we have said, "stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion." Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S.--, --, 138 S.Ct. 1663, 1670, 201 L.Ed.2d 9 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Or again: "Freedom" in one's own "dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection secured by the Fourth Amendment"; conversely, "physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which it is directed." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585, 587, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Amendment thus "draws a firm line at the entrance to the house." Id., at 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371.

Lange v. California, 594 U.S.--, --, 141 S.Ct. 2011, 2018, 210 L.Ed.2d 486 (2021).

[¶15] This Court has also recognized the important role of the Fourth Amendment in relation to the home. "The Fourth Amendment protects 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'" Fuller, 2021 WY 36, ¶ 9, 481 P.3d at 1133 (quoting U.S. Const, amend. IV). "Physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed." Id. (quoting United States v. United States Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Mick, S. Div., 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2134, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972)). Entry into a home, no matter how limited, constitutes a search. United States v. Jones, 701 F.3d 1300, 1317 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 582 n.17, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1377 n.17, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)).

[¶16] "Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless they are justified by probable cause and established exceptions." Fuller, 2021 WY 36, ¶ 9, 481 P.3d at 1134 (quoting Pena v. State, 2004 WY 115, ¶ 29, 98 P.3d 857, 870 (Wyo. 2004)); see also Mickelson v. State, 906 P.2d 1020, 1024 (Wyo. 1995) ("When the threshold of a home . . . intervenes, probable cause is insufficient to warrant entry absent the presence of [an...