State v. Coffee

• Decision Date: 05 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2018AP1209-CR,2018AP1209-CR
• Citation: 2020 WI 53,391 Wis.2d 831,943 N.W.2d 845
• Parties: STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mose B. COFFEE, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

391 Wis.2d 831

943 N.W.2d 845

2020 WI 53

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Mose B. COFFEE, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.

No. 2018AP1209-CR

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oral Argument: January 21, 2020

Opinion Filed: June 5, 2020

Motion for Reconsideration Filed: June 15, 2020

For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Frances Colbert, assistant state public defender. There was an oral argument by Frances Colbert.

For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief filed by John A. Blimling, assistant attorney general; with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by John A. Blimling.

ROGGENSACK, C.J., delivered an opinion of the court, in which ZEIGLER, J., joined. KELLY, J., filed a concurring opinion. DALLET, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joined.

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J.

¶1 We review a decision of the court of appeals¹ affirming the circuit court² denial of Mose B. Coffee's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of a vehicle incident to his lawful arrest for Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) that Coffee argues violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court of appeals reasoned that the lawful arrest for OWI, in and of itself, supplied a basis to search the passenger compartment, and, specifically, a bag located behind the driver's seat that contained marijuana.

¶2 We disagree that the lawful arrest for OWI, in and of itself, supplied a sufficient basis to search the passenger compartment of Coffee's vehicle. However, the search was lawful because police had reasonable suspicion, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the passenger compartment, and, specifically, the bag, might contain evidence of OWI. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.

I. BACKGROUND

¶3 Officer Timothy Skelton works for the Oshkosh Police Department. On August 30, 2017, at 11:17 p.m., he observed an automobile driving on a city street that did not have a front license plate. He instituted a traffic stop, "which was eventually completed in the parking lot" of a restaurant or bar.

¶4 The automobile parked close to another vehicle. Skelton testified:

As the vehicle had pulled into the parking lot, there were other vehicles that were already parked.... [I]n this case the vehicle as it pulled in pulled in at an angle and very close to a vehicle that was -- it would be on the driver's side. My estimation was that it was no more than two feet from the other vehicle, making it very -- it was very close to the other vehicle and somewhat at an angle.

Body camera footage shows that Coffee's vehicle was over the yellow line on the driver's side.

¶5 Skelton explained why he found how the vehicle was parked noteworthy:

Well, it was the fact that I was performing the traffic stop and the vehicle continued into the parking lot. And the way it had parked, the driver immediately was getting out of his vehicle so it was almost as if he was -- knew I was behind him and was getting out quickly.

¶6 Skelton asked the driver, Coffee, to stay in the vehicle. "When asked how much he had to drink and from where was he coming, [Coffee] stated he was coming from a friend's house and that he had not had that much."

¶7 Skelton believed that Coffee was intoxicated. Coffee's speech was slurred, and his eyes were "very glazed over and bloodshot." Skelton testified that the "glazed over look in his eyes" was a sign that Coffee was "possibly impaired by intoxicants and or other controlled substances." According to the affidavit supporting the criminal complaint, "Skelton could smell an odor of intoxicants coming from the vehicle." Skelton also testified that after he had Coffee "sit down in his car" he smelled "an odor of intoxicants coming from his person or from the vehicle." Based on these observations, Skelton decided to ask Coffee to step out of the vehicle, so he could administer field sobriety tests.

¶8 As Skelton walked with Coffee to conduct a test, he realized that he met Coffee a few weeks prior. He recalled that Coffee had been "very quiet at that time." Yet, Coffee was presently "very talkative."

¶9 Coffee performed poorly on field sobriety tests. He exhibited all six clues on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, failed to complete the nine-step-walk-and-turn test and sang the alphabet twice after being instructed to state the alphabet twice in a row without singing. Skelton then administered a preliminary breath test, which indicated that Coffee had a prohibited alcohol level of .14.³

¶10 Skelton arrested Coffee and secured him in the back of his squad car. Skelton then instructed two other officers at the scene, Brenden Bonnett and Benjamin Fenhouse, to search the passenger compartment.

Skelton informed the two that Coffee had been arrested "for operating under the influence of alcoholic beverages."

¶11 Bonnett testified that "the subject was in custody for impaired driving." Therefore, "I'd be looking for any substance in the vehicle that could impair a driver's ability to operate the motor vehicle safely." He further testified that he was "looking for any substance, whether that could be prescription medication, nonprescription medication, alcohol, illegal drugs, or even up to possibly an inhalant such as Dust-Off -- can of Dust-Off I know has been used before also as a substance which has impaired drivers."

¶12 Bonnett found a cloth bag "right behind the driver's seat, whereas in the driver could have moved it with his arm while seated in the driver's seat." "Inside that cloth bag were two mason jars. Inside the mason jars were flakes of what was suspected to be marijuana." Bonnett testified that he had to "dig through the bag" before locating the jars because there were other items on top that concealed them from sight.⁴

¶13 After Bonnett found the jars with what appeared to be flakes of marijuana, Fenhouse searched the trunk of the vehicle. Fenhouse found an additional 930.7 grams of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

¶14 The State charged Coffee with possession with intent to deliver THC, possession of drug paraphernalia, second-offense OWI and second-offense OWI with a prohibited alcohol concentration. Coffee moved to suppress "all evidence obtained" from the search.

¶15 After a contested hearing, the circuit court concluded that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the search of the bag was permissible because it was within reach from the driver's seat. The circuit court also explained, "I'm really not putting much weight on the fact of where exactly that bottle was found because it doesn't matter if the defendant just threw it on top of the bag or to conceal it pushed it down to the bottom or in the middle. That's easily done."

¶16 After the circuit court denied Coffee's motion, he reached a plea agreement with the State. He pled no-contest to possession with intent to deliver THC and second-offense OWI. The two other counts were dismissed. After sentencing, Coffee appealed.

¶17 The court of appeals affirmed. State v. Coffee, 2019 WI App 25, 387 Wis. 2d 673, 929 N.W.2d 245. It stated:

[A]s a matter of law ... when an officer lawfully arrests a driver for OWI, even if alcohol is the only substance detected in relation to the driver, a search of the interior of the vehicle, including any containers therein, is lawful because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the offense of OWI might be found.

Id., ¶13.

¶18 We granted Coffee's petition for review, which argued that the court of appeals ignored the particular facts of the case. Coffee argued that the court applied a bright-line rule, and therefore, the search was not justified by the totality of the circumstances. We agree that bright-line rules are disfavored by the United States Supreme Court in its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; however, we affirm because the totality of the circumstances provided the foundation for concluding that the search was reasonable.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

¶19 Review of a decision denying a motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment presents a question of constitutional fact. State v. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134, ¶27, 359 Wis. 2d 421, 857 N.W.2d 120. We employ a two-step inquiry when presented with a question of constitutional fact. State v. Robinson, 2010 WI 80, ¶22, 327 Wis. 2d 302, 786 N.W.2d 463 ; see also State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84, ¶13, 327 Wis. 2d 252, 786 N.W.2d 97.

¶20 First, we uphold the circuit court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Richter, 2000 WI 58, ¶26, 235 Wis. 2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29. Second, we independently apply constitutional principles to the facts. Id.; see also Dearborn, 327 Wis. 2d 252, ¶13, 786 N.W.2d 97. These principles require an objective application of the facts, meaning we independently examine the facts known to the officer at the time of the warrantless search. We do not analyze what the officer subjectively believed or what inferences he or she actually drew.

¶21 In the present case, we apply this two-step inquiry to determine whether the search of the passenger compartment, and, specifically, the bag, was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.⁵ The burden is on the State to prove that the search was constitutionally permissible because police did not obtain a warrant prior to searching the vehicle. State v. Johnston, 184 Wis. 2d 794, 806, 518 N.W.2d 759 (1994) (citing United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) ); State v. Phillips, 2009 WI App 179, ¶7, 322 Wis. 2d 576, 778 N.W.2d 157.

B. Fourth Amendment Principles

¶22 The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

...