State v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 08 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-0428,19-0428
• Citation: 857 S.E.2d 180
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Jeffrey Alan SNYDER, Defendant Below, Petitioner

857 S.E.2d 180

STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent

v.Jeffrey Alan SNYDER, Defendant Below, Petitioner

No. 19-0428

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: February 9, 2021

Filed: April 8, 2021

Clinton W. Smith, Esq., Law Office of Clinton W. Smith, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner.

Patrick Morrisey, Esq., Attorney General, Benjamin J. Yancey, III, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Jessica A. Lee, Esq., Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent.

WALKER, Justice:

Jeffrey Alan Snyder appeals an order denying his motion to suppress evidence that he contends was the fruit of an illegal entry and search of his home. Law enforcement officers went to Mr. Snyder's home to serve a domestic violence emergency protective order (EPO). While the EPO prohibited Mr. Snyder from possessing firearms and provided for the surrender of firearms to the officer serving it, the officers interpreted the EPO as a search warrant permitting them to enter and search Mr. Snyder's home for weapons. When the officers entered the home, they smelled marijuana and did a protective sweep of the premises, which included a pat down of Mr. Snyder and those in his home. The pat down and protective sweep yielded methamphetamine and a home growth marijuana operation, and that evidence prompted law enforcement officers to then seek an actual search warrant for Mr. Snyder's home.

We conclude that an EPO is not a de facto search warrant: the statute authorizing EPOs and procedures for issuance of an EPO do not meet the probable cause standards necessary to issue a search warrant compliant with the Fourth Amendment of the United State Constitution and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution. Here, the State relied exclusively on the EPO to justify its entry into Mr. Snyder's home below. So, we conclude that no exception to the warrant requirement applies under these facts to otherwise validate the entry and search of Mr. Snyder's home. Because the circuit court erred in denying Mr. Snyder's motion to suppress this evidence, we reverse the circuit court's April 3, 2019 conviction and sentencing order and remand the case for further proceedings.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 27, 2018, Mr. Snyder's ex-wife filed an ex parte petition in the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County for an EPO against him. The magistrate court issued the EPO the same day.¹ The EPO form has boxes where the court may indicate whether there are firearms involved or firearms present on the property, but neither were marked. As to firearms, the form EPO orders that "Respondent shall surrender any and all firearms and ammunition possessed or owned by the Respondent to the law enforcement officer serving this Order."² It further puts the Respondent on notice that possession of firearms, whether properly licensed or not, while a protective order is in effect may result in criminal liability.³

Because Mr. Snyder was living in Amma, West Virginia, the EPO was transferred from Kanawha County to Roane County, for service by the Roane County Sheriff's Department. Sheriff L. Todd Cole alleges he spoke with Mr. Snyder's ex-wife who informed him that Mr. Snyder had several guns in the residence and that she believed him to be using methamphetamine. Sheriff Cole and three other officers went to serve the EPO at Mr. Snyder's residence on March 28, 2018. Sheriff Cole alleges that he knocked on the door of Mr. Snyder's home and Mr. Snyder opened the door, at which point Sheriff Cole informed Mr. Snyder that an order of protection had been issued against him. Sheriff Cole states that it was raining, which is one of the reasons he stepped inside the residence. While Sheriff Cole alleges he asked to come in before stepping inside, he does not allege that Mr. Snyder told him he could come inside or otherwise answered or gestured for him to do so.

Sheriff Cole stepped into the residence, claiming that the EPO ordered him to seize all firearms while serving the order. Sheriff Cole later testified that he intended to enter the residence, with or without Mr. Snyder's consent, and to search all places where a two-to-three-inch gun could be found pursuant to the EPO. After entering, he smelled marijuana and saw another individual in the home. That prompted Sheriff Cole and the other officers to pat down both Mr. Snyder and the other individual for officer safety, and a small baggie of white powder consistent with methamphetamine was found in Mr. Snyder's pocket. Upon learning that there was another person upstairs in the home, Sheriff Cole and the other officers performed a protective sweep, and while doing so observed marijuana plants and other items in the home consistent with an indoor marijuana growth operation.

Mr. Snyder was arrested and transported to the Sheriff's Department. While other officers secured the home, Sheriff Cole filed a complaint and affidavit for a search warrant for Mr. Snyder's residence. The search warrant was issued and officers found more items consistent with a growth operation, THC extraction, and distribution practices in the residence. Mr. Snyder was later indicted for one count of manufacturing a controlled substance (marijuana), and one count of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (marijuana).

Mr. Snyder filed a motion to suppress all evidence derived from the search of his home, arguing the entry and search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The circuit court disagreed, and denied the motion to suppress, finding that the "[EPO] further required the Roane County Sheriff to seize any firearms at the time of the service of the [EPO][,]" and that "law enforcement was legally in the home of the Defendant when a strong odor of marijuana was observed and a bucket of green marijuana was observed in plain view during a protective sweep of the home."

After the court's ruling, Mr. Snyder agreed to plead guilty to manufacturing a controlled substance (marijuana), while preserving his right to appeal the circuit court's order denying the motion to suppress evidence from the search.⁴

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court undertakes a multi-faceted standard of appellate review of a motion to suppress: "we take the facts in the light most favorable to the State, review the circuit court's factual findings for clear error, and conduct a de novo review of the determination of whether the search or seizure violated the Fourth Amendment."⁵ That standard is derived from syllabus points 1 and 2 of State v. Lacy :

When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court should construe all facts in the light most favorable to the State, as it was the prevailing party below. Because of the highly fact-specific nature of a motion to suppress, particular deference is given to the findings of the circuit court because it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and to hear testimony on the issues. Therefore, the circuit court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error.^[6]

In contrast to a review of the circuit court's factual findings, the ultimate determination as to whether a search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 6 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Similarly, an appellate court reviews de novo whether a search warrant was too broad. Thus, 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.^{[7 ]}

Applying that standard, we turn to our analysis as to whether the search conducted at Mr. Snyder's home runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable search and seizure.

III. ANALYSIS

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,⁸ and the correlative provision of the West Virginia State Constitution, Article III, Section 6,⁹ protects people against certain kinds of governmental intrusion.¹⁰ The United States Supreme Court has held that the physical entry of the home by law enforcement is the " ‘chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.’ "¹¹ And this Court has adhered to the view that the warrant procedure minimizes that sort of danger.

We have explained that "the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment's promise is ‘reasonableness,’ which generally, though not always, translates into a warrant requirement."¹² Those circumstances falling into that "not always" category – exceptions to the warrant requirement – are "few[,] specifically established[,] and well-delineated."¹³ In applying those exceptions to the circumstances in which officers conducted a search outside of the judicial process, we have discussed that "the exceptions are jealously and carefully drawn, and there must be a showing by those who seek exemption that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative."¹⁴

This recitation of Fourth Amendment protections and case law related to the search warrant requirement and exceptions thereto is oft-repeated, and its application formulaic despite its complexity. The first inquiry is whether there was a warrant. And, if not, is there some exception to the warrant requirement to justify the search? But, this fact pattern departs from that conventional analysis in that the Roane County Sheriff's Department was acting under color of court order – technically inside judicial process – but that order was not a search warrant.

At the suppression hearing, Sheriff Cole stated unequivocally that he believed the EPO required him to enter Mr. Snyder's home and to search it for all spaces where a two-to-three-inch gun could be found, and to seize those firearms. Essentially, the State argued below, and the circuit court agreed, that the EPO was tantamount to a general search warrant. We do not read the statute...