State v. Creutz
| Decision Date | 21 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | SD37383 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM BRYCE CREUTZ, JR., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM BRYCE CREUTZ, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
No. SD37383
Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, In Division
December 21, 2022
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STODDARD COUNTY Honorable Robert N. Mayer, Circuit Judge AFFIRMED
GINGER K. GOOCH, J.
William Bryce Creutz, Jr. ("Creutz") appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Stoddard County, Missouri ("trial court"), convicting him, after a jury trial, of one count of possession of a controlled substance and of the infraction of trespass in the second degree. The trial court sentenced Creutz to a term of seven years in the Missouri Department of Corrections on the possession count and ordered no fine on the trespass infraction.
On appeal, Creutz claims that the trial court clearly erred in refusing to suppress evidence found in a vehicle inventory search because the search violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the Missouri Constitution and Section 304.155 in that Section 304.155 required that Creutz be
given the opportunity to make arrangements to remove the vehicle.[1] Creutz seeks reversal of his conviction on the possession count (Count I) and remand for a new trial on that count. The judgment is affirmed.
Factual Background and Procedural History
The State charged Creutz with felony possession of a controlled substance, first-degree harassment, misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting arrest, and first-degree trespass, all relating to events that occurred on January 5, 2021.
On October 15, 2021, Creutz filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during an inventory search of a vehicle he was driving. Creutz argued the vehicle was not lawfully impounded because he was not permitted to contact a responsible driver to remove the vehicle and he was not given an opportunity to retrieve the vehicle before it was towed. Creutz argued the inventory search was unlawful because it was not conducted in accordance with a reasonable, standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying the contents of the impounded vehicle.[2]
On October 20, 2021, the trial court held a suppression hearing. One witness, Officer Jacob Garcia ("Officer Garcia"), testified at the hearing. Officer Garcia testified he was a patrolman with the Dexter Police Department. Officer Garcia testified he arrived at a private residence in Dexter, Missouri on January 5, 2021 after receiving a dispatch report
that the homeowner had reported a suspicious vehicle in the driveway and that the vehicle had followed the homeowner's minor daughter home from basketball practice and had attempted to drive into the homeowner's garage. When Officer Garcia arrived, he observed Creutz sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle with the homeowner's vehicle behind Creutz's vehicle. When Officer Garcia arrived, Lieutenant Jody Laramore ("Lieutenant Laramore") of the Missouri State Highway Patrol was at the scene and Officer Elledge arrived shortly thereafter.[3] Officer Garcia testified Creutz failed to obey multiple orders to roll his windows down, and that Creutz was making movements underneath clothing located in the passenger seat and retrieved an unknown item black in color, which Officer Garcia reported to Lieutenant Laramore.[4] Creutz then exited the vehicle in "[a] defensive posture, he, uh, at that time he kind of postured his chest-[.]" Creutz failed to comply with orders to turn around and put his hands behind his back and he began to resist. Officer Garcia testified Officer Elledge tased Creutz when Creutz began to resist and then Officer Garcia tased Creutz when the first taser cycle was not successful. After a brief struggle, Creutz was secured in handcuffs and placed under arrest for harassment of a minor child, trespassing, and resisting arrest. Officer Garcia testified vehicle dispatch was contacted and officers learned Creutz was driving with a revoked license and a tow truck was called because Creutz was under arrest and the vehicle was on third-party private property. With regard to the vehicle seizure and inventory search, Officer Garcia testified:
Q Does your department have a written policy with regard to inventory searches that are performed any time a vehicle is towed from a scene?
A We do.
Q And in this case did you follow that written policy?
A I did.
Q And there are numerous reasons for a written policy but some of them would be to protect the police department about allegations of things being stolen or lost?
A Yes, sir.
Q And so, did you conduct an inventory search of that vehicle?
A I did.
Q And you did that pursuant to the written policy of your department?
A Yes, sir.
Q And during that search you found some contraband that is the subject of some criminal charges that [Creutz] faces?
A We did.
Q That includes a clear glass smoking device, um, that had methamphetamine residue on it, a plastic baggie containing a crystal substance in a black pouch, those were all found inside the vehicle; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
On cross examination Officer Garcia testified he had read the Dexter Police epartment written policy concerning inventory searches whenever a vehicle is towed om a scene, and that the policy provides for an inventory search before the vehicle is wed from the scene. Officer Garcia testified Creutz's vehicle was towed to a private mpoundment lot and that this was in accord with standard policy because the Dexter olice Department does not have its own impoundment lot.
With regard to whether Creutz was given an opportunity to contact someone to trieve the vehicle, Officer Garcia testified:
Q And, uh, did to [sic] give [Creutz] the opportunity to contact someone to pick up the vehicle?
A At that time, I don't believe that we obtained any information, uh, of [Creutz] due to the noncompliance of our basic orders.
Q And when [sic] [Creutz] the owner of the vehicle?
A No, sir.
Q Who was the owner of the vehicle?
A His mother.
Q Did you contact his mother to pick up the vehicle?
A No, sir, I don't believe we had a way to contact her, I don't believe we had a number.
Q And you didn't ask [Creutz] for the number?
A I'm not a hundred percent sure, sir.
Q Did you give [Creutz] the opportunity to move the vehicle?
A No.
Q Did you give [Creutz] the opportunity to contact someone else to pick up the vehicle?
A At that time I don't believe [Creutz] was able to contact anybody due to his state of mind. We couldn't even get a phone number from [Creutz].
Q I'm sorry, I, you said due to his and then I, I didn't hear you, I'm sorry.
A Due to, I mean, the totality of the circumstances of [Creutz's] noncompliance, um, when we asked him questions, uh, there was a few times we didn't get a response so, I mean, no, sir.
Officer Garcia also testified Creutz was highly agitated, had to be tased twice, and seemed somewhat intoxicated on some kind of illicit substance, and that Creutz did not seem in the frame of mind to give coherent answers to anything that would be asked. At the conclusion of the hearing, Creutz's counsel argued:
Mr. Oliver seems to be misstating my actual point which is that the, the vehicle's owner is not the Defendant in this case. The vehicle's owner is, um, a, instead of a citizen that deserves the right to privacy to have their, their property protected from illegal searches and seizures and the right to be notified and given the opportunity to, uh, to pick up their vehicle. [Creutz's] mother should have been contacted, his mother should have been given the opportunity to, to pick up the vehicle and the client should have been given the opportunity to contact someone to pick up the vehicle as well.
The trial court permitted supplemental briefing, and Creutz filed a memorandum of law, arguing again that the warrantless search was unlawful and the evidence obtained therefrom should be excluded because law enforcement did not contact the vehicle owner (Creutz's mother) and did not give Creutz the opportunity to contact anyone to have the vehicle moved.
On November 4, 2021, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that "the inventory search was reasonable" without further explanation.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial