State v. Skidmore
| Decision Date | 30 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-0161,No. 18-0160,No. 18-0139,18-0139,18-0160,18-0161 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Parties | State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. John Russell Skidmore, Defendant Below, Petitioner AND State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Gordon Wade Swiger, Defendant Below, Petitioner AND State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Nickolas Lee Velez, Defendant Below, Petitioner |
Petitioners John Russell Skidmore, Gordon Wade Swiger, and Nickolas Lee Velez appeal final sentencing orders entered by the Circuit Court of Monongalia County following their conditional guilty pleas1 to the offenses of burglary2 and conspiracy.3 In these appeals, all three petitioners argue that the circuit court erred by denying their motions to suppress the evidence that was obtained by the police following an extra-jurisdictional traffic stop. Petitioners Skidmore and Velez also assert that the circuit court erred by denying their motions to suppress the statements they made while in custody. In response, the State maintains that the circuit court did not commit reversible error.4
This Court has considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the appendix records. Upon application of the standard of review and the pertinent authorities, we find no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the final sentencing orders of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
On March 5, 2017, at approximately 9:32 p.m., Brett McIntyre ("the victim") called MECCA5 911 and reported that he was robbed at 7:25 p.m. that evening. The robbery occurred at an apartment building located on Willey Street in Morgantown. Initially, two police officers from the Morgantown Police Department were dispatched to the crimescene. The victim stated that three masked white males wearing dark sweatshirts forced their way into his apartment and stole his cellphone and a jar of marihuana at gunpoint. Based upon the victim's description of the alleged perpetrators, a "be on the lookout" ("BOLO") call was issued at approximately 9:40 p.m. by MECCA 911 for After further investigation, a second BOLO was sent out indicating that the suspects were possibly traveling in a "white Audi A4 model."6
At approximately 10:45 p.m., Patrolman Aaron Huyett of the Granville Police Department observed a white Audi sedan with multiple occupants wearing dark clothing traveling on Dents Run Boulevard in the Town of Granville. Officer Huyett started following the vehicle, which left Granville and proceeded up an entrance ramp onto Interstate 79, southbound. Officer Huyett radioed for backup from his superior, Sergeant Joshua Slagle. Sergeant Slagle indicated that he was on the way and radioed for any available county unit to respond and for the Morgantown Police to be notified. Officer Huyett then initiated a stop of the vehicle using his siren and lights. The vehicle pulled to the side of the highway. At that point, Officer Huyett was between two and two and one-half miles outside his jurisdiction.
According to Officer Huyett, Officer Slagle arrived five seconds after the stop occurred. As Officer Huyett ordered the suspects to exit their vehicle, Officer Slagle provided cover. While the suspects were exiting the vehicle and being secured, a patrolman from the Star City Police Department arrived on the scene followed by two officers from the Monongalia County Sheriff's Department. The vehicle was owned and operated by Petitioner Skidmore. The other passengers included Petitioners Swiger and Velez.7 While securing the petitioners, the officers asked if there were any firearms in the vehicle. Petitioner Skidmore stated that there was a black airsoft rifle in the trunk and a handgun under the passenger seat. Officer Huyett also observed a dark hat, a black bandana, a small baggie containing what appeared to be marihuana, and a thirty-round airsoft rifle magazine inside the vehicle in plain view. Officer Huyett did not attempt to secure the evidence. After the Morgantown Police arrived on the scene, they impounded the vehicle andsubsequently obtained a search warrant.8 The petitioners were detained for questioning and transported to the Morgantown Police Station.
At the police station, the petitioners were placed in separate interrogation rooms and interviewed separately. Petitioner Swiger gave a statement but did not offer any substantive information. Petitioner Skidmore confessed to the robbery and stated that Petitioner Velez carried a firearm owned by Petitioner Swiger during the commission of the crime. Petitioner Velez also confessed and provided details regarding what occurred. Thereafter, all three petitioners were arrested, processed, and arraigned by 9:00 a.m. the next morning.
On May 5, 2017, all three petitioners were indicted, and each was charged with one count of robbery and one count of conspiracy. Thereafter, they filed motions to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop of their vehicle, arguing that the stop was unlawful because Officer Huyett had acted outside his jurisdiction. Petitioners Skidmore and Velez also filed motions to suppress the statements they made while in custody, contending that they were not fully informed of their constitutional rights and that the arresting officers delayed presenting them to a magistrate in order to obtain their confessions. Petitioner Skidmore also asserted that his statement was not voluntarily given because he was intoxicated. The circuit court held multiple hearings and ultimately denied the petitioners' motions. Thereafter, the petitioners entered conditional guilty pleas to the offenses of burglary and conspiracy. Following entry of their sentencing orders,9 the petitioners filed separate appeals. The State then moved to consolidate the appeals for purposes of argument and decision. By order entered on October 4, 2018, this Court granted the State's motion.
This Court further held in Lacy that "a circuit court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence will be affirmed unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, or, based on the entire record, it is clear that a mistake has been made." Id. at 107, 468 S.E.2d at 722, syl. pt. 2, in part. With this standard of review in mind, we consider the parties' arguments.
Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. State v. Gustke, 205 W. Va. 72, 516 S.E.2d 283 (1999). In syllabus points fourteen and fifteen, respectively, of State v. Horn, 232 W. Va. 32, 750 S.E.2d 248 (2013), this Court further held:
The petitioners assert that Officer Huyett did not have a factual or legal basis to objectively conclude that they had committed a felony when he stopped their vehicle. They contend that the evidence showed that Officer Huyett was not inside his vehicle when the first BOLO was transmitted. They argue that the second BOLO did not provide sufficient facts for Officer Huyett to conclude that a felony had occurred or that the occupants of the car had committed the crime because the description of the vehicle was too vague. The petitioners maintain that the stop was investigatory in nature, and because private citizens have no authority to make investigatory stops, all the evidence obtained therefrom must besuppressed. In support of their argument they rely upon this Court's recognition in Gutske that "[t]he 'under color of office' doctrine prohibits a law enforcement officer [outside his jurisdiction and not in fresh pursuit] from using the indicia of his or her official position to collect evidence that a private citizen would be unable to gather." 205 W. Va. 81, 516 S.E.2d at 292.
Conversely, the State argues that Officer Huyett made a lawful felony stop based upon the information contained in the BOLO dispatches. The State contends that Officer Huyett had reasonable grounds to believe...
To continue reading
Request your trial