State v. Renfrow

• Citation: 224 S.W.3d 27
• Decision Date: 27 February 2007
• Docket Number: No. WD 66102.,WD 66102.
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kirk R. RENFROW, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

224 S.W.3d 27

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kirk R. RENFROW, Appellant.

No. WD 66102.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

February 27, 2007.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 1, 2007.

As Modified May 1, 2007.

Application for Transfer Denied June 26, 2007.

Thomas J. Keedy, Unionville, MO, for appellant.

Brenda Wall-Swedberg, Lancaster, MO, for respondent.

Before HOWARD, P.J., BRECKENRIDGE and HOLLIGER, JJ.

PATRICIA BRECKENRIDGE, Judge.

Kirk R. Renfrow appeals from a judgment of the trial court convicting him of driving while intoxicated, in violation of section 577.010, RSMo 2000.¹ In his sole point on appeal, Mr. Renfrow claims that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication because the evidence was the product of an illegal stop. Specifically, Mr. Renfrow claims that the stop was unlawful because the stop was conducted by a police officer outside of his jurisdiction, and not in fresh pursuit, as authorized under section 544.157. Because this court finds that the evidence of Mr. Renfrow's intoxication was obtained through the exploitation of his unlawful seizure, the trial court clearly erred in overruling Mr. Renfrow's motion to suppress. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that the trial court sustain Mr. Renfrow's motion to suppress.

Factual and Procedural Background

In the early morning hours on February 19, 2005, Officer Jeffery Gottman, a part-time officer for the City of Lancaster, was traveling west within the city limits of Lancaster on U.S. Highway 136 in his city patrol car. As he approached the intersection of U.S. Highways 63 and 136, Officer Gottman observed a 1996 Black Ford Ranger pickup swerve across the centerline. As the pickup proceeded through the intersection across U.S. Highway 63 and onto State Highway 202 outside the city limits, Officer Gottman observed the pickup veer off the intersection onto the shoulder of the road. The pickup then shot back across the road, crossed the centerline, crossed back over the fog line, and started driving with one wheel on the gravel and the other on the highway. After Officer Gottman crossed U.S. Highway 63, he activated the emergency equipment on his vehicle and followed the pickup until it stopped. Because the centerline of U.S. Highway 63 is the city limits for the City of Lancaster, Officer Gottman was outside the city limits when he activated his emergency equipment and stopped the vehicle.

Officer Gottman approached the pickup and, when the driver rolled down the window, Officer Gottman could smell a strong odor of alcohol. Officer Gottman asked the driver to produce his driver's license, and Officer Gottman identified the driver as Mr. Renfrow. Officer Gottman then asked Mr. Renfrow to turn off his vehicle and to come sit with him in his vehicle. As Mr. Renfrow was walking to Officer Gottman's vehicle, Officer Gottman observed that Mr. Renfrow was staggering while he was walking. Once inside the vehicle, Officer Gottman contacted the Missouri State Highway Patrol to request that an officer come and administer a sobriety test. Officer Gottman explained to Mr. Renfrow that he was being detained. While they were sitting in Officer Gottman's vehicle, Mr. Renfrow admitted to Officer Gottman that he had been drinking at a bar. Officer Gottman informed Mr. Renfrow that when the Highway Patrolman arrived, he would perform a sobriety test and either arrest Mr. Renfrow for driving while intoxicated or allow him to go home. Officer Gottman also wrote a ticket citing Mr. Renfrow for failure to drive on the right half of the roadway.

At 2:40 A.M., Trooper Adam Kinney of the highway patrol arrived on the scene and spoke with Officer Gottman. Officer Gottman explained to Trooper Kinney why he had stopped Mr. Renfrow and handed him Mr. Renfrow's driver's license. Trooper Kinney made contact with Mr. Renfrow while he was in the front passenger seat of Officer Gottman's patrol car and asked him to exit Officer Gottman's vehicle and have a seat in his vehicle. As Mr. Renfrow exited Officer Gottman's vehicle, Trooper Kinney observed that Mr. Renfrow had to steady himself on Officer Gottman's vehicle and that Mr. Renfrow was swaying as he was walking. When Trooper Kinney got inside of his vehicle with Mr. Renfrow, Trooper Kinney could smell the odor of intoxicants coming from Mr. Renfrow. Trooper Kinney asked Mr. Renfrow if he had been drinking and Mr. Renfrow said, "yes."

Trooper Kinney then administered a series of field sobriety tests while both inside and outside the vehicle. Trooper Kinney concluded from Mr. Renfrow's poor performance on the tests that he was intoxicated, so Trooper Kinney arrested Mr. Renfrow for driving while intoxicated. After Trooper Kinney arrested Mr. Renfrow, he was taken to the Schuyler County Jail to perform a breathalyzer test. At the county jail, Mr. Renfrow consented to the breathalyzer test and the results of the test indicated that Mr. Renfrow had a blood alcohol content of .134 percent.

The State charged Mr. Renfrow with driving while intoxicated under section 577.010. Prior to trial, Mr. Renfrow filed a motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication, asserting that the initial stop and detention was unlawful because it was made outside of Officer Gottman's jurisdiction. A bench trial was held on June 21, 2005, where the trial court heard and took Mr. Renfrow's motion to suppress under advisement. On August 22, 2005, the trial court found Mr. Renfrow guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of driving while intoxicated in violation of section 577.010. Mr. Renfrow filed this appeal.

Standard of Review

"`Review of a trial court's decision as to a motion to suppress evidence is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence to support its decision.'" State v. Wilson, 169 S.W.3d 870, 875 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (citation omitted). "`The trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress will be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous.'" Id. (citation omitted). "`The trial court's ruling is clearly erroneous if this court is left with a definite and firm belief a mistake has been made.'" Id. (citation omitted). "`This court reviews the trial court's decision viewing the facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the trial court's order with the freedom to disregard contrary evidence and inferences.'" Id. (citation omitted).

Error in Overruling Motion to Suppress

In his sole point on appeal, Mr. Renfrow asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication because the evidence was the product of an illegal stop. Specifically, Mr. Renfrow claims that the stop was unlawful because the stop was conducted by a police officer outside of his jurisdiction when not in fresh pursuit under section 544.157.

"It is well established as a general rule that, in the absence of statute, municipal police officers have no official power to apprehend offenders beyond the boundaries of their municipality." City of Advance v. Md. Cas. Co., 302 S.W.2d 28, 31-32 (Mo.1957). Although section 85.610 gives marshals of cities of the fourth class "power to make arrests without process, in all cases in which any offenses against the laws of the city or of the state shall be committed in [their] presence," "[t]his section does not empower the marshal to make an arrest beyond the city limits." Id. (quoting section 85.610, RSMo 1949). An exception exits, however, where a law enforcement officer is in fresh pursuit of a person who has committed any criminal offense or violation of a municipal or county ordinance. Section 544.157.1. "Fresh pursuit" must be initiated from within the officer's jurisdiction and "imp[ies] instant pursuit." Sections 544.157.1, .3.

Mr. Renfrow relies on City of Ash Grove v. Christian, 949 S.W.2d 259 (Mo.App. S.D.1997), to support his claim that Officer Gottman was not in "fresh pursuit" when Officer Gottman stopped him outside of the city limits and, therefore, had no authority to make an arrest beyond the city limits. In City of Ash Grove, the defendant was arrested for diving while intoxicated in violation of a city ordinance by a city police officer outside the city limits. 949 S.W.2d at 260. While within the city limits, the officer observed the defendant speeding in his truck and "`wandering within the traffic lane it was driving in.'" Id. The officer followed the truck, but did not activate his vehicle's emergency lights or siren within the city limits while following the truck. Id. After leaving the city limits, the defendant voluntarily stopped his vehicle on the shoulder of the road, and it was then that the officer activated his emergency equipment. Id.

After his conviction by the trial court, the defendant appealed and claimed his arrest violated section 544.157 because he was arrested outside the city limits by a city police officer who was not in fresh pursuit. Id. at 261. The court in City of Ash Grove stated the "crux of the instant case" centered "upon the definition of "`fresh pursuit"' and then undertook a detailed analysis of the meaning of that term. Id. at 262-64. In defining "fresh pursuit," the court noted that section 544.157 was amended in 1993 and the definition was changed from "pursuit without unreasonable delay" to "instant pursuit." Id. at 262. In addition, the court found that because the legislature amended the statute, the amendment was presumed to have some effect and, therefore, found that "instant pursuit" "implies an attempt to apprehend or overtake in an immediate manner, without delay." Id. Thus, the court held that the 1993 amendment of section 544.157 expanded "on the immediacy of the concept of `pursuit' by requiring `instant' pursuit, as opposed to the more lax standard of `pursuit without unreasonable delay."' Id. at 263.

In addition, the court in City of...