State v. Vandervort
| Decision Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | WD85748,WD85752 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. KIMBERLY E. VANDERVORT, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY The Honorable Karen L Krauser, Judge.
Before: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge, and Karen King Mitchell, Judge.
Kimberly Vandervort was charged with driving while intoxicated after police responded to her single vehicle collision with a light pole. The circuit court granted in part Vandervort's motion to suppress all custodial statements she made before the arresting officer read her Miranda rights. In this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Section 547.200.1(3),[1] the State of Missouri contends the court erred in suppressing Vandervort's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test because her refusal was not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination. The State further argues that the circuit court erred in suppressing Vandervort's statement about vomiting in the patrol car because the officer's question was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. For reasons explained herein, we reverse, in part, and affirm, in part, the suppression order.
On April 4, 2021, Officer Tyler Kalbfleisch was dispatched to Gladstone for a single car collision with a street light. As he arrived at the scene, Vandervort got out of her damaged car and approached the officer's vehicle. Officer Kalbfleisch escorted Vandervort back to her car. Vandervort explained that her car door would no longer close and that she was trying to go home. Officer Kalbfleisch told her that he had "to do one thing first."
Vandervort attempted to reach into the car, and Officer Kalbfleisch restrained her by using physical force to move her away from the car door. He said "Stop, stop I'm going to put you in handcuffs." He placed her against the front fender of the vehicle and said Officer Kalbfleisch then asked routine investigative questions, and Vandervort complied by providing her name, address, and other identifying information.
Officer Brett Sinclair arrived at the scene to assist Officer Kalbfleisch. They asked for Vandervort driver's license and proof of insurance several times. Each time she attempted to retrieve the documentation, Officer Kalbfleisch prevented Vandervort from reaching into her car, instructed that she stay in front of her vehicle, and physically moved her.
Officer Kalbfleisch asked Vandervort, "how much have you had to drink today?" Vandervort asked the officers, Officer Kalbfleisch began searching her vehicle and found Vandervort's identification, but not her insurance. Vandervort began to explain where her insurance card was located through the open car window and moved around the car door to point to the location. Officer Kalbfleisch grabbed Vandervort's left hand and physically moved her back to the front of her car. Officer Sinclair instructed Vandervort to stand "right here," and began asking her questions about alcohol consumption.
Officer Sinclair attempted to perform standard field sobriety tests but Vandervort did not comply. Vandervort was placed under arrest, handcuffed and taken to Officer Sinclair's patrol car. The officers continued their investigation by searching for documents in Vandervort's vehicle.
Officer Sinclair went back to his patrol car to ask Vandervort about her cell phone. He heard Vandervort retching. She stated that her cell phone was in her car. Officer Sinclair closed the door, walked over to Officer Kalbfleisch and informed him that Vandervort was "vomiting in the cage." He stated that
Officer Sinclair drove Vandervort to the police station. During the drive, he asked Vandervort "Did you puke back there?" He further stated, "you'll be cleaning that up before you leave." He continued asking Vandervort if she vomited on herself. Vandervort responded "I don't know." Officer Sinclair told her that it was an easy to answer question and she should be able to answer. Vandervort admitted that she had "a little puke" on her shoes and apologized.
At the police station, Officer Sinclair escorted Vandervort from the holding cell to another room. He requested that Vandervort take a breath test and read the implied consent information from Missouri's Alcohol Influence Report (AIR) form. Vandervort responded "No." She then asked about the length of her driver's license revocation for refusal. At that point, Officer Sinclair read Vandervort her Miranda rights from the AIR form.
The State charged Vandervort with one count of driving while intoxicated in violation of Section 577.010. The case was set for jury trial on October 3, 2022. At a pretrial conference on September 29, 2022, the court considered Vandervort's motion to suppress all statements she made to Officers Kalbfleisch and Sinclair that were captured on their body cameras. After hearing argument from Vandervort and the State, the circuit court partially granted Vandervort's motion to suppress by oral pronouncement and docket entry on September 30, 2022. The court ruled that Vandervort's statements made post-arrest and pre-Miranda would be suppressed, including her refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test because "the State will want to use that failure to test as an admission of guilt." Based on that ruling, the State requested and was granted a continuance of the October 3 trial date.
On October 3, 2022, the State requested formal findings of fact and conclusions of law on the suppression ruling. On October 5, 2022, the State filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of the circuit court's oral ruling and docket entry.
As requested by the State, on October 13, 2022, the circuit court issued "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Order," in support of its "preliminary ruling" on the suppression motion. The court concluded that Vandervort was under arrest at the time she was handcuffed and "should have been Mirandized prior to her custodial interrogation, therefore all alleged statements, oral, written, videotaped, or otherwise recorded prior to being Mirandized shall be suppressed."
The State filed a second notice of interlocutory appeal regarding the "Judgment and Order" on October 20, 2022. The State also filed a motion to consolidate both appeals, which this court granted.[2]
"The State has the burden at a suppression hearing to show by a preponderance of evidence that a motion to suppress should be denied and the evidence should be admitted." State v. Wright, 585 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Mo. App. 2019) (internal quotation and citation omitted). "Our review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision." State v. Humble, 474 S.W.3d 210, 214 (Mo. App. 2015) (citation omitted). We will reverse the ruling on a motion to suppress only if it is clearly erroneous. Wright, 585 S.W.3d at 367 (citation omitted). After a review of the entire record, the circuit court's ruling is clearly erroneous if we are left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Id.
"In applying this standard of review, we defer to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations and consider all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling." Id. (citation omitted). Whether "the Fifth Amendment or any other provision of the United States Constitution has been violated is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo." Id. (citation omitted).
Suppression of Vandervort'S Blood-Alcohol Test Refusal[3]
In Point I, the State contends that the circuit court erred in suppressing Vandervort's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test because the refusal was not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination. The State further argues that the officers were not required to give the Miranda warning before requesting Vandervort to submit to testing pursuant to Missouri's implied consent law.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 19 of the Missouri Constitution guarantee a person's right against selfincrimination. In order to protect this right, a criminal suspect is entitled to a Miranda warning when subjected to a custodial investigation. State v. Gaw, 285 S.W.3d 321, 321 (Mo. banc 2009) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966)). "A custodial interrogation occurs only when the suspect is formally arrested or is subjected to arrestlike restraints." State v. Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624, 631-32 (Mo. banc 2016) (citation omitted).
"In Missouri, 'custodial interrogation' is defined as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody." Gaw, 285 S.W.3d at 321 (citation omitted). Custodial interrogation is inherently coercive. State v. Sparkling, 363 S.W.3d 46, 49 (Mo. App. 2011) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. 436). Generally, "[s]tatements obtained during a custodial interrogation not preceded by Miranda warnings are subject to suppression at trial." State v. Craig, 550 S.W.3d 481, 484 (Mo. App. 2018) (citation omitted).
While conceding that Vandervort was in custody when she refused the blood-alcohol test, the State argues that the Miranda warning was not required because the officers were proceeding under Missouri's implied consent law. The United States Supreme Court has held that "a refusal to take a blood-alcohol test, after a police officer has lawfully requested it, is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial