State v. Helfrich
| Docket Number | 123,153 |
| Decision Date | 07 January 2022 |
| Parties | State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Joshua David Helfrich, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from Jackson District Court; Norbert C. Marek Jr., judge.
Michelle A. Davis, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Steven J. Obermeier, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt attorney general, for appellee.
Before Gardner, P.J., Schroeder and Cline, JJ.
After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the district court convicted Joshua David Helfrich of possession of methamphetamine. He appeals, arguing the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his wallet. We agree that the officers lacked probable cause to search Helfrich's wallet and that the evidence must be suppressed.
After officers arrested Helfrich in a Walmart parking lot on August 9, 2018, the State charged him with possession of drug paraphernalia, disorderly conduct, and possession of methamphetamine. Helfrich moved to suppress the methamphetamine officers had found in his wallet, arguing that the officers lacked authority to take his wallet while he was detained. He also maintained that if he was arrested his arrest was illegal because it lacked probable cause, and that officers exceeded the scope of a search incident to arrest by searching his wallet after taking it from his reach, citing Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009).
The State did not respond to Helfrich's motion to suppress either in writing or by oral argument in the district court despite the fact that when a defendant moves to suppress evidence as the fruit of an illegal search, it is the State's burden to establish the lawfulness of the search. State v. Reiss, 299 Kan. 291, 296, 326 P.3d 367 (2014).
The district court denied the suppression motion, admitted the evidence, and later found Helfrich guilty of possession of methamphetamine. Helfrich challenges only the district court's ruling on his motion to suppress.
In reviewing the evidence, we consider only the evidence admitted at the suppression hearing. State v. Jones 300 Kan. 630, 645, 333 P.3d 886 (2014) (); State v. Knight, 55 Kan.App.2d 642, 645, 419 P.3d 637 (2018) (). Our summary of facts below thus does not rely, as the State does, on evidence admitted at the preliminary hearing.
The State called only Officer Eli Norris to testify at the suppression hearing. Norris testified that he had been called to Walmart on a suspicious person call-someone was possibly "tweaking" in the electronics section and Walmart wanted him removed. He contacted Helfrich in Walmart's parking lot. He asked to speak to Helfrich, and Helfrich agreed. Helfrich produced his identification when asked. Norris said Helfrich could not stand still-he would get really close to Norris, who would back away, and then he would get really close again. Norris said Helfrich's actions and behavior showed he was probably high on meth, and that his experience in law enforcement made it pretty easy for him to recognize when someone was high on something.
A Walmart employee then told Norris that Helfrich had thrown something in the back of a truck that was leaving the parking lot. Norris followed the vehicle, which stopped at the gas station next door, and he found a toolbelt, which Helfrich had thrown into the truck, that had a torch-style lighter and a container with a powder-like substance. Based on Norris' experience as an officer, he believed the torch lighter was possible drug paraphernalia.
Norris returned to Walmart where Helfrich was already handcuffed. Norris frisked Helfrich before putting him in the patrol car and took his wallet out of his pocket. He testified that Helfrich was not under arrest even after he had been handcuffed and placed in the patrol car. A drug dog was called and alerted on the vehicle Norris thought Helfrich had arrived in-a truck reportedly owned by Helfrich's uncle, Jason Wise-but a search of the vehicle found nothing. Norris did not believe he had probable cause to arrest Helfrich even after the dog alerted on Wise's truck. After the dog alerted officers searched the truck but found nothing. Then Norris searched Helfrich's wallet and found in it a baggie of what he suspected was methamphetamine. He then arrested Helfrich based on the contraband found "on his person."
Helfrich admitted a video of the incident, captured by Undersheriff Darrel Chapman's bodycam. The video shows that officers removed Helfrich's wallet from his pocket and kept it for over 11 minutes before searching it.
The district court did not hear arguments from the parties but took the matter under advisement. It ultimately denied Helfrich's motion, applying the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement.
The State later dismissed its charges for possession of drug paraphernalia and disorderly conduct. As for the remaining charge of possession of illegal drugs, Helfrich agreed to a bench trial on stipulated facts. Those facts included:
The district court found Helfrich guilty of possessing methamphetamine under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5706(a). It sentenced Helfrich to 11 months of incarceration but granted him 12 months of probation. Helfrich has since been discharged from probation.
Helfrich timely appeals.
Helfrich argues that the district court improperly relied on the search incident to arrest exception to deny his motion to suppress the evidence found in his wallet. Helfrich first contends that he was not arrested before officers searched his wallet but was only detained for investigation purposes. Helfrich then asserts that even if he was arrested before his wallet was searched, his arrest was illegal because officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. Lastly, Helfrich argues that the police lacked justification to search his wallet even after the dog alert.
This court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence for substantial competent evidence and its ultimate legal conclusion de novo. State v. Cash, 313 Kan. 121, 125-26, 483 P.3d 1047 (2021). "'Substantial competent evidence is that which possesses both relevance and substance and which furnishes a substantial basis in fact from which the issues can reasonably be resolved.'" State v. Sanders, 310 Kan. 279, 294, 445 P.3d 1144 (2019). In reviewing the factual findings, this court will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Hanke, 307 Kan. 823, 827, 415 P.3d 966 (2018).
A warrant is generally required for a search to be reasonable.
City of Kingman v. Ary, 312 Kan. 408, 410-11, 475 P.3d 1240 (2020).
The district court applied the search incident to lawful arrest exception here.
Kansas courts recognize four types of police encounters: (1) voluntary encounters; (2) investigatory detentions; (3) public-safety stops and welfare checks; and (4) arrests. State v. Cleverly, 305 Kan. 598, 605, 385 P.3d 512 (2016). During an investigatory detention, an officer may perform a pat-down search for weapons that might pose a danger to the officer. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S 113, 118-19, 119 S.Ct. 484, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 1106, 289 P.3d 68 (2012).
Helfrich first maintains that Chapman merely detained him for investigation and that the seizure and search of his wallet exceeded Terry's scope. His argument that he was detained, but not arrested, before officers searched his wallet relies largely on Norris' testimony at the suppression hearing. Norris testified that Helfrich was detained and not under arrest even after he was handcuffed and placed in his patrol car. But the test for whether an arrest has occurred is objective-based on what a reasonable person would believe under...
To continue reading
Request your trial