State v. Fields, No. E2004-00716-CCA-R3-CD (TN 1/7/2005)

• Decision Date: 07 January 2005
• Docket Number: No. E2004-00716-CCA-R3-CD.,E2004-00716-CCA-R3-CD.
• Parties: STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROBBIE W. FIELDS.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROBBIE W. FIELDS.

No. E2004-00716-CCA-R3-CD.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville.

October 26, 2004 Session.

Filed January 7, 2005.

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Bradley County; No. 00-267; Carroll L. Ross, Judge.

Judgment of the Criminal Court Reversed and Remanded.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General; Jerry N. Estes, District Attorney General; and Shari Tayloe Young, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellant, State of Tennessee.

Kenneth L. Miller, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the appellee, Robbie W. Fields.

Alan E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Jerry L. Smith and J. C. McLin, JJ., joined.

OPINION

ALAN E. GLENN, Judge.

The defendant, Robbie W. Fields, was indicted by the Bradley County Grand Jury for possession of a Schedule I controlled substance, ecstasy, with intent to sell or deliver; possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, marijuana, with intent to sell or deliver; possession of drug paraphernalia; tampering with evidence; and theft of property under $500. After a pretrial hearing, the trial court suppressed the evidence, and the charges were dismissed, which the State argues was error. Following our review, we reverse the trial court's determination that the officers unlawfully entered the defendant's apartment and remand for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the seizure of evidence.

FACTS

We first will briefly outline the testimony before discussing it in detail. On March 8, 2000, the Cleveland Police Department ("CPD") received information from the Knoxville Police Department ("KPD") that a vehicle involved in a kidnapping several hours earlier in Knoxville was at an address, which they provided, in Cleveland. CPD officers went to the address where they found the described vehicle. They approached the duplex where the vehicle was parked, and one officer peered through the blinds while the other knocked on the door. The defendant came into the hallway, asked who was at the door, and, when the police identified themselves, ran back in the direction from which he came. However, he soon returned, opened the door, and was immediately physically restrained. While officers searched for the kidnap victim, they discovered drugs at various places in the apartment. The defendant was arrested and indicted for possession with intent to sell or deliver ecstasy, possession with the intent to sell or deliver marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, tampering with evidence, and theft of property under $500, namely a government road sign found in the duplex.

At the pretrial hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence, Officer Dennis Maddux testified that, at approximately 7:00 a.m. on March 8, 2000, he had received a radio call from the dispatcher that "there was a car on Hamilton Circle Northwest that had been involved in a kidnaping in [Knoxville] a few hours earlier." Officer Maddux and other CPD officers went to Hamilton Circle, located the vehicle, and "confirmed through Knoxville that the registration was the same as that that was involved in the kidnaping." At this point, the kidnapping victim had not yet been located. Officer Maddux stated that "an hour or two, maybe three" had passed between the time of the kidnapping and the locating of the vehicle. After looking inside the car, the officers approached the defendant's apartment. Officer Maddux knocked on the door while Sergeant Tyson "peered through a blind that was in the front living room." Sergeant Tyson saw a "male subject" enter the hallway and heard him yell, "Who is it?" The police officers identified themselves as such, and, according to Maddux, the officers:

back[ed] off the door for a moment, trying to figure do we have circumstances, exigent circumstances to kick the door to secure the safety of a victim that we've not located yet. And before we could do anything, the white male [the defendant] comes back into the living room and opens the door. And as he opens the door, we push our way on in, and we secure him on the floor and go through the apartment to try to find the victim of this kidnaping.

While checking the bathroom, the officers "immediately noticed a plastic bag swirling in the toilet, spinning around." After clearing the rest of the apartment, the officers retrieved the bag and the contraband from the toilet. Maddux said "other drugs" were found throughout the defendant's apartment. The male kidnapping victim was found later at another location. Another unknown male subject was found sleeping in the defendant's apartment.

On cross-examination, Officer Maddux said the vehicle was parked in the driveway nearest the defendant's side of the duplex. Maddux said KPD officers "were given information that it was not just one person that was involved" in the kidnapping, but that "several" were involved and "[t]here were descriptions given," although he could not recall them. Asked if he had any reason to believe that there was anyone else in the apartment at that time, Officer Maddux responded their "concern was just to find the victim. We didn't know what reason [the defendant] ran back into the back of the apartment for."

On redirect, Officer Maddux testified he found only the drugs floating in the toilet, but he did observe "other drugs" in the bedroom where the second male subject was sleeping. On recross, he stated the items in the plastic bag in the toilet were "[w]hite tablets," which he could not identify at the time he found them.

The defendant detailed his actions after he heard the knock on the door:

I stepped out around the corner. I asked who it was. They said, they identified theirselves (sic) as police officers. I went back into the bathroom. I was already in the bathroom, beginning to break the marijuana up to throw in the commode. I threw it in there. I slammed the lid, hit flush, and went back out and opened the door.

Relying primarily on our analysis in State v. Rodney Ford, No. 01C01-9708-CR-00365, 1999 WL 5437 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 7, 1999), the trial court suppressed the evidence seized from the defendant's apartment because, in the court's view, there were no exigent circumstances justifying the entry:

THE COURT: Well, in looking at this case of State v. Ford — and the General's talked a great deal about what the officers didn't know, and set forth any number of hypothetical things that might have been happening. What the Court has to concern itself with is not what the officer didn't know but what the officers did know. And in making any determination, which clearly sets forth in the Ford case, "Warrantless searches and seizures" — and I'm reading directly from the case of State v. Ford — within a home are presumptively unreasonable." I think we can all agree that's a basic tenet of our Constitution, both the State and the Federal." Absent exigent circumstances or consent" — we certainly didn't have consent here. I don't think there's been any argument there, so we're stuck with the exigent circumstances exception, " — police officers may not seek the subject of an arrest warrant here" — and it talks about — "in the home of a third person without first obtaining a search warrant." Then it says, "When exigent circumstances may be found" — and it sets forth three specific situations, may be found in three situations. "(1) When the officers are in hot pursuit of a fleeing subject", which they were not here; "(2) When the subject represents an immediate threat to the arresting officers or to the public." Certainly no threat to the arresting officers. I don't know of any threat to the public. There's an alleged citizen that may have been kidnaped, but I'll deal with that. The third one is, "When immediate police actions are necessary to prevent the destruction of vital evidence or thwart the escape of a known criminal." Well, that's not been shown either.

[THE STATE]: Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

[THE STATE]: The victim of the kidnaping is evidence to that crime, and that is a vital piece of evidence to a kidnaping crime, is a victim.

THE COURT: Well, but there's no evidence that he was trying to destroy any evidence in this — that's what we have to look at. And it has to be more than just some hypothetical possibility. And the Court notes — and I'm not basing any of my decision on this, but this defendant's not even been charged with kidnaping in the county — and the question that, that I wrote down here is — and I'm not faulting — we get this more and more where officers from another jurisdiction calls one of our officers wanting us to go do, go look in somebody's home or go do this, or they put you on the spot and say, "We've got this and . . ." I think a good question, with the information that this officer very honestly says they gave him, could a, could a search warrant have issued on that information, and I'm not sure it could, with no more than they gave him. "We think this vehicle kidnaped somebody." You know, I don't know the basis of that. As I say, there's not even been a charge brought at this point, that I know of, and I'm not basing any of my decision on that, but I can't help but observe that. This is over a year ago, and you know, kidnaping's a pretty serious charge. Certainly the allegations are very serious. (Brief pause) And I don't think any Court could say if you don't have enough information for, to get a search warrant, you could take that same information and justify a warrantless search on some exigent circumstances theory. I just — of those three exceptions to the search warrant requirement, I can't see the State has shown any of those on this set of facts and circumstances. And I'm looking over and over, and I can't see that it fits within one of those from the facts and proof that's been shown here today.

And the officer, in all candor and all honesty, he admitted he had...