Parsons v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 12 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019-CA-001219-MR,2019-CA-001219-MR |
| Parties | STEPHEN C. PARSONS APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM ANDERSON CIRCUIT COURT
On January 25, 2018, at approximately 1:34 a.m., Officer Brian Brashears of the Lawrenceburg Police Department was driving past the Five Star gas station on West Broadway in Lawrenceburg, Kentucky, when he noticed a white Toyota Camry parked near the air hose and kerosene pump. While the inside of Five Star was closed for the night, the air hose and gas pumps remained open to customers at all times. Upon reaching the intersection of Broadway and 127, Officer Brashears noticed that he needed gas. As such, he turned his cruiser around and went back to the Five Star. When Officer Brashears returned to the Five Star, he noticed that the white Camry was still parked in the same location. After filling his gas tank, Officer Brashears decided to approach the vehicle and make contact with its occupant.
Officer Brashears testified that the vehicle's engine was running but its lights were turned off. He could not make out whether anyone was inside because the windows were tinted. Officer Brashears knocked on the driver's window. Parsons opened the door. Officer Brashears asked Parsons what he was doing, and Parsons stated he was waiting at the gas station to pick up a female. Parsons then began reaching into the passenger seat of the vehicle. At that time, Officer Brashears noticed a handgun box in the backseat. Officer Brashears asked Parsons to place both hands on the steering wheel of the vehicle and requestedbackup. Officer Trey Burrus quickly arrived on scene. Upon Officer Burris's arrival, Officer Brashears asked Parsons for identification. Because Parsons had no identification on hand, he provided officers, instead, with his name and Social Security number and/or driver's license number. The officers ran this information and confirmed Parsons's identity. The search also disclosed that Parsons was a convicted felon and registered sex offender. Officer Brashears testified that this information allowed him to determine that Parsons would be prohibited from possessing a firearm. Given Officer Brashears's prior sighting of the handgun box in the backseat, Officer Brashears believed he had probable cause to search Parsons's vehicle.
Prior to conducting the search, Officer Brashears asked Parsons if there was anything in the vehicle that would cause him injury, such as a poke or cut. Parsons admitted that a bag in the passenger seat contained narcotics, methamphetamine, and other illegal substances or paraphernalia. When Officer Brashears searched the vehicle, he was able to locate the bag in the place where Parsons said it would be found. After examining the contents of the bag, Officer Brashears confirmed that it contained various drugs and drug paraphernalia. During the course of his interactions with Parsons, Officer Brashears noticed that Parsons's pupils were two different sizes. Parsons was ultimately arrested forDUI, possession of the controlled substances, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
When asked about his decision to arrest Parsons for DUI, Officer Brashears stated that Parsons told him that he had driven from his residence to the Five Star parking lot to meet a female. Officer Brashears testified that Parsons told him that he had used some illegal narcotics a few hours before the stop, and he observed during the stop that Parsons's pupils were not the same size causing him to believe that Parsons was still under the influence.
On April 3, 2018, Parsons was indicted on an eight-count indictment for first-degree possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, second-degree possession of an unspecified controlled substance, possession of marijuana, DUI, failure to be in possession of an operator's license, and having excessive window tint.8
On July 17, 2018, Parsons moved the trial court to suppress evidence obtained by the Commonwealth. The trial court held a suppression hearing on July 31, 2018, at which Officer Brashears testified. Following the hearing, both Parsons and the Commonwealth submitted memoranda to support their respective arguments. On September 19, 2018, the trial court entered its order denyingParsons's motion to suppress. Thereafter, Parsons entered his conditional plea of guilt, preserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Parsons was sentenced on June 18, 2019. This appeal followed.9
Following a motion to suppress, the trial court must make both findings of fact and legal conclusions based on those findings. As a reviewing court, we must apply the constitutional standards to the facts of the case. Goben v. Commonwealth, 503 S.W.3d 890, 903 (Ky. 2016). This requires us to apply a dual standard of review: "de novo for legal questions and clear error for questions of fact." Id. Under this dual standard, we first examine the trial court's findings of fact. We must "defer to the trial court's findings of fact if they are not clearly erroneous." Commonwealth v. Jennings, 490 S.W.3d 339, 346 (Ky. 2016). Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial evidence. Davis v. Commonwealth, 484 S.W.3d 288, 290 (Ky. 2016). Assuming that the facts were correctly decided, we then "undertake a de novo review of the trial court's application of the law to the facts to determine whether its decision to deny the motion to suppress was correct as a matter of law." Id.
Parsons's first argument is that Officer Brashears lacked probable cause to arrest Parsons for DUI because there was no affirmative evidence indicating that Parsons had or was in the course of operating his vehicle at the time of the arrest. To this end, Parsons points out that he was parked in a gas station parking lot with his lights off. He asserts that Officer Brashears had no idea how long he had been in the parking lot or whether he planned to drive away from it in the immediate future.
"To determine whether an officer had probable cause to make an arrest, a court must examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide 'whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to' probable cause." Jackson v. Commonwealth, 343 S.W.3d 647, 653-54 (Ky. App. 2011) (quoting Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, 800, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003)). "Probable cause exists when the totality of the evidence then known to the arresting officer creates a 'fair probability' that the arrested person committed the [offense]." White v. Commonwealth, 132 S.W.3d 877, 883 (Ky. App. 2003).
In Wells v. Commonwealth, this Court adopted a four-factor test to determine whether a defendant was in control of or operated a vehicle while intoxicated in violation of KRS 189A.010:
(1) whether or not the person in the vehicle was asleep or awake; (2) whether or not the motor was running; (3) the location of the vehicle and all of the circumstances bearing on how the vehicle arrived at that location; and (4) the intent of the person behind the wheel.
709 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Ky. App. 1986).
In considering these factors, the trial court found:
[U]pon contact with Officer Brashears, Parsons was awake, he was in the driver's seat, he was the only occupant of the car, and the car was running as it sat in the Five Star parking lot, according to the testimony at the suppression hearing. Officer Brashears testified that Parsons stated that he had driven to the Five Star to pick up a female who was to meet him there. One can infer that Parsons intended to drive back to his residence once he had picked up his female companion that was to meet him at the Five Star. Officer Brashears, during the investigatory phase of the stop observed that Parsons [sic] pupils were each different size [sic], and Parsons informed Officer Brashears that he had used drugs approximately two hours earlier. The evidence is sufficient to infer that Parsons drove to the Five Star and he intended to drive back home, and there was evidence that he was under the influence of drugs when he drove to Five Star.
Having reviewed the record, we cannot hold the trial court erred when it concluded that Parsons had driven his vehicle to the Five Star while under the influence and that he intended to drive it back to his residence once the female he was supposed to meet arrived. The car was running with Parsons...
To continue reading
Request your trial