State v. Hinmon

• Decision Date: 27 October 2016
• Docket Number: No. 20150015–CA,20150015–CA
• Citation: 385 P.3d 751,2016 UT App 215
• Parties: STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Matthew James HINMON, Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

385 P.3d 751

2016 UT App 215

STATE of Utah, Appellee,

v.Matthew James HINMON, Appellant.

No. 20150015–CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed October 27, 2016

John B. Plimpton, Heather J. Chesnut, and Alexandra S. McCallum, Attorneys for Appellant.

Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and Lindsey L. Wheeler, Attorneys for Appellee.

Judge Kate A. Toomey authored this Memorandum Decision, in which Judge Michele M. Christiansen and Senior Judge Pamela T. Greenwood concurred.¹

Memorandum Decision

TOOMEY, Judge:

¶1 In this memorandum decision, we determine whether the trial court erred in denying Matthew James Hinmon's motion to suppress evidence.We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In September 2013, a grocery store employee (Employee) noticed a small green passenger car backed into a parking stall in the store parking lot.The car, which was next to Employee's own vehicle, caught his attention because the passenger side door was welded shut and because it was parked on the west side of the parking lot, "where most employees park."Two people were sitting in the car.As Employee approached his own car, a man seated in the passenger seat saw him, "lurched forward" to cover something in his lap, and looked over at Employee "in a manner that struck [Employee] as suspicious."Looking through the window on the driver's side of the vehicle, Employee saw a towel on the man's lap "with a bunch of pink balloons" on top of the towel.

¶3 The number of balloons seemed too many "for just personal use," and Employee suspected a drug transaction.He radioed the store manager and the security guard (Guard) to "come out and handle" the situation.Guard worked part time at the grocery store and was a full-time peace officer with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.He had worked with the Division for twenty-five years.At the time of the incident, he was wearing a gun belt, a gold name badge, and a dark blue uniform, which "looks like""a police officer's uniform."Employee met the manager and Guard as they emerged from the store, and explained the situation to them.Employee described the car as a "little small green vehicle," told them where it was parked, and that it had been backed into the stall.He also described the passenger's "suspicious" reaction, and said the passenger had a towel across his lap and was "twisting up" little pink balloons.He disclosed his suspicions that the passenger was involved in a drug transaction, and more specifically, that he assumed the passenger was selling heroin to the driver.

¶4 Guard decided to investigate, and he and the manager moved toward the car Employee had described.Guard approached it from behind and peered into the window on the passenger's side without being noticed by either occupant.As Guard looked over the passenger's shoulder, he saw a towel on the man's lap and observed him manipulating something "on the towel in the middle of his lap."

¶5 The next events happened in rapid succession.As Guard moved closer, the passenger looked up at him and froze.Guard called out, "Don't move."The passenger briefly hesitated, then grabbed what was in his lap and "thr[ew] his hands toward the floor of the vehicle."He yelled at the driver to "take off, take off" and to "just drive, just drive" and reached toward the car's gearshift.When Guard saw the passenger's hands shove something towards the floor, he thought the passenger was either "hiding contraband" or "going for a weapon."Guard reached inside the open passenger window to grab the passenger's hands and restrain him, saying, "Police, you are under arrest."

¶6 A struggle ensued.Guard continued trying to restrain the passenger's hands and told him repeatedly to "quit resisting" and to "stop resisting arrest."The passenger freed his right hand and reached toward the driver with a clenched fist, telling her to "eat this," but she shook her head.In an attempt to free himself from Guard's grip, the passenger "lurched really hard up over the seat" so that his head was in the backseat and his feet were in the passenger seat.He tried to "shov[e] something in his mouth," but "a little pink balloon bounce[d] off and roll[ed] into the backseat."While Guard struggled to restrain the passenger, the manager was on the driver's side of the car.The manager saw the balloon when it fell and immediately picked it up from the backseat.Eventually, the manager and Guard restrained and arrested the passenger, who was later identified as Hinmon.A police officer soon arrived and field tested the contents of the pink balloon, which tested positive for heroin.

¶7 Hinmon was charged with possession of a controlled substance and interfering with an arresting officer.He moved to suppress the evidence of the pink balloon and the results of the field test as the fruit of an unconstitutional search.The trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which Employee, the manager, and Guard each testified.After hearing oral argument and reviewing hearing transcripts, witness statements, and memoranda from both sides, the court entered detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

¶8The court determined that Guard had initiated an investigatory stop when he told Hinmon, "Don't move."It also concluded that Guard had reasonable suspicion to make the stop: Employee's tip was from a citizen informant and "highly reliable,""sufficiently detailed," and confirmed by Guard.Next, the court determined that Guard arrested Hinmon when he attempted to restrain Hinmon's hands.²The court also concluded Guard had probable cause for this arrest because after Guard told Hinmon not to move, Hinmon reacted by shoving everything in his lap to the floor, reaching for the gearshift, and yelling at the driver to "take off."This reaction, combined with Employee's tip and Guard's investigation, was enough to show an objectively reasonable high probability of criminal activity."Accordingly, the court denied Hinmon's motion to suppress, and Hinmon entered a Sery plea reserving the right to appeal the trial court's ruling.³

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶9 Hinmon contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress.A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress presents a "mixed question of law and fact."State v. Fuller , 2014 UT 29, ¶ 17, 332 P.3d 937.The court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error, while its legal conclusions are reviewed for correctness.Id.Hinmon further alleges the court made four clearly erroneous findings of fact.We will set aside the trial court's factual findings as clearly erroneous only if they are "against the clear weight of the evidence, or if [we] otherwise reach[ ] a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made."Brown v. State , 2013 UT 42, ¶ 37, 308 P.3d 486(alterations in original)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

¶10 The United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.U.S. Const. amend. IV.Our case law outlines three different types of permissible law enforcement encounters: consensual encounters, investigatory stops, and arrests.SeeState v. Applegate , 2008 UT 63, ¶¶ 8–9, 194 P.3d 925.Only the latter two types are at issue here.For an investigatory stop, an officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity has taken place.State v. Worwood , 2007 UT 47, ¶ 23, 164 P.3d 397.To effect a reasonable, warrantless arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.State v. Hansen , 2011 UT App 242, ¶ 8, 262 P.3d 448(citingDevenpeck v. Alford , 543 U.S. 146, 152, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537(2004) )."[E]vidence obtained in unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is excluded from criminal proceedings."State v. Harker , 2010 UT 56, ¶ 17, 240 P.3d 780.

¶11 Hinmon contends that the trial court erred in concluding Guard had reasonable suspicion to initially detain Hinmon, and that the court erred in concluding Guard had probable cause to arrest him.Hinmon also alleges that the court clearly erred in making four particular findings of fact.We address Hinmon's challenges to these findings of fact within our discussion of the ultimate issues of reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

I.Reasonable Suspicion

¶12 First, Hinmon claims Guard "lacked reasonable suspicion when he performed an investigatory detention of [him]."⁴

Reasonable suspicion requires that officers "be able to point to specific facts which, considered with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the detention.State v. Warren , 2003 UT 36, ¶ 14, 78 P.3d 590.Reasonable suspicion "is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability."Navarette v. California , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1683, 1687, 188 L.Ed.2d 680(2014)(quotingAlabama v. White , 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301(1990) )."Both factors—quantity and quality—are considered in the totality of the circumstances."White , 496 U.S. at 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶13 Here, Guard relied on a tip provided by an identified citizen informant—Employee.Reasonable suspicion may be based on an informant's tip.SeeState v. Roybal , 2010 UT 34, ¶¶ 14–15, 20, 232 P.3d 1016.The Utah "Supreme Court has declined to adopt a ‘rigidly exact[ing]’ standard in assessing an informant's tip and instead undertakes a ‘flexible, common sense test’ with a view toward the ‘totality of the facts and circumstances.’ "⁵State v. Lloyd , 2011 UT App 323, ¶ 15, 263 P.3d 557(alteration in original)(quotingState v. Saddler , 2004 UT 105, ¶¶ 10–27, 104 P.3d 1265 ).When determining whether a tip was sufficiently reliable to support a conclusion that reasonable suspicion existed, we look to the " ‘indicia of veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge’ " as " ‘non-exclusive elements.’ "Id.(quotingSaddler , 2004 UT 105, ¶ 11, 104...