State v. Ward

• Docket Number: 22-0211
• Decision Date: 09 November 2023
• Parties: STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Plaintiff Below, Respondent, v. CHARLES ERIC WARD, Defendant Below, Petitioner.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Plaintiff Below, Respondent, v. CHARLES ERIC WARD, Defendant Below, Petitioner.

No. 22-0211

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

November 9, 2023

Submitted: October 17, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Raleigh County The Honorable Robert A. Burnside, Jr., Judge Criminal Action No. 21-F-402

Gary Collias, Esq. Appellate Advocacy Division Public Defender Services Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Petitioner

Patrick Morrisey, Esq. Attorney General Michael R. Williams Esq. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Courtney M. Plante Assistant Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Respondent

JUSTICE ARMSTEAD concurs and may write separately.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. "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." Syllabus point 1, State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996).

2. "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." Syllabus point 2, State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996).

3. "'Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution-subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. 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.' Syllabus Point 1, State v. Moore, 165 W.Va. 837, 272 S.E.2d 804 (1980), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Julius, 185 W.Va. 422, 408 S.E.2d 1 (1991)." Syllabus point 20, State v. Ladd, 210 W.Va. 413, 557 S.E.2d 820 (2001).

4. "The essential predicates of a plain view warrantless seizure are (1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the incriminating evidence could be viewed; (2) that the item was in plain view and its incriminating character was also immediately apparent; and (3) that not only was the officer lawfully located in a place from which the object could be plainly seen, but the officer also had a lawful right of access to the object itself." Syllabus point 3, State v. Julius, 185 W.Va. 422, 408 S.E.2d 1 (1991).

5. "Neither a showing of exigent circumstances nor probable cause is required to justify a protective sweep for weapons as long as a two-part test is satisfied: An officer must show there are specific articulable facts indicating danger and this suspicion of danger to the officer or others must be reasonable. If these two elements are satisfied, an officer is entitled to take protective precautions and search in a limited fashion for weapons." Syllabus point 6, State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996).

OPINION

BUNN, JUSTICE:

The Circuit Court of Raleigh County sentenced Petitioner Charles Eric Ward to a term of imprisonment of five years following his conditional guilty plea for one count of felony possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-7-7(a)(1).^[1] Pursuant to the terms of the conditional plea, Mr. Ward appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm seized by law enforcement at his t-shirt print shop in the basement of his mother's residence. He argues that the search and seizure violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article III, section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution. Specifically, Mr. Ward contends that law enforcement conducted the search and seized the firearm without a warrant and that the plain view and officer safety exceptions relied upon by the State below do not apply. We agree, and accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's December 2, 2021 order denying Mr. Ward's motion to suppress and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 11 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A Raleigh County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Ward in September 2021, on one count of felony possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-7-7(a)(1).^[2] In November 2021, Mr. Ward filed a motion to suppress evidence asserting that the warrantless seizure of a firearm from his t-shirt print shop violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article III, section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution. The State did not file a written response.

The circuit court held a suppression hearing on December 1, 2021.^[3] During the hearing, Mr. Ward testified to the following facts. In March 2021, two officers from the Raleigh County Sheriff's Office arrived at his mother's residence and questioned him regarding a dispute.^[4] The officers asked him for identification, and Mr. Ward informed the officers he could retrieve it from "downstairs in [his] mother's house in the [t]-shirt shop."^[5]Both officers and Mr. Ward "walked around the side to get to the door." As Mr. Ward entered the main basement, he opened the door "and both of [the officers'] hands, one above the other, grabbed the door behind [him.]" The officers followed him in. Mr. Ward then walked through a second door that led into a separate room used for his t-shirt printing shop. While Mr. Ward retrieved his identification, an officer observed a firearm in the shop.

Mr. Ward testified that a person standing at the entryway to the basement door would not have been able to see the firearm because it would have been obscured by two doors and a shower curtain. Further, he stated that the basement was not his residence; it only contained his t-shirt print shop where he worked once or twice a week, and there was a lock on the front door.

Detective Roger Queen of the Raleigh County Sheriff's Office testified for the State to the following. He and another officer, Deputy Howard, responded to a report of a dispute between neighbors. By the time Det. Queen arrived at the scene, Dep. Howard had already spoken with the neighbor. The officers next spoke with Mr. Ward and his mother. During that conversation, Det. Queen asked for identification, and Mr. Ward informed the officers it was in his t-shirt print shop. Det. Queen followed Mr. Ward through the basement entrance door and stood inside the interior door to the print shop. Until this point, Det. Queen had not asked permission to enter because he was there to watch Mr. Ward retrieve his identification and "[f]or officer safety." Det. Queen indicated he acted with general caution, but that he did not have a specific reason to fear for his safety.^[6] Mr. Ward was compliant and did not appear to be impaired, but he did seem "agitated."

Once in the doorway to the t-shirt print shop, Det. Queen "noticed a weapon" in the corner of the room. He then asked Mr. Ward "Do you mind if I come in?" Mr. Ward responded that Det. Queen could enter the room. Det. Queen retrieved the firearm, explaining to the circuit court that he wanted to put himself "in-between [Mr. Ward] and the weapon in case there was an altercation or in case he changed his mind or whatever." Upon retrieving the firearm, Det. Queen generally stated to Mr. Ward that he was not allowed to have the firearm believing that he would get one of two responses from Mr. Ward: (1) yes, I am (if he was not a felon) or (2) that is not mine (if he was a felon).^[7] After some conversation, Mr. Ward admitted that he was a felon. Det. Queen seized the firearm. The State did not put forth any additional evidence.

The day following the hearing, December 2, 2021, the circuit court entered its order denying Mr. Ward's motion to suppress. The court circuit court relied on Det. Queen's testimony that he did not enter the basement building to conduct a search; rather, he entered for a "legitimate purpose to preserve officer safety" because he was responding to a dispute involving Mr. Ward, "who was still in an agitated state due to the circumstances." It concluded that "[t]he discovery of the weapon was within the scope of the plain view doctrine" because "Det[.] Queen had a legitimate reason to be in the doorway of the room so that he could observe the movements of [Mr. Ward] for the purpose of officer and community safety." Further, the circuit court found that "[w]hile in that location [Det. Queen] observed the object which resembled a firearm, asked permission to enter, and upon entry confirmed that it was a firearm."

With the approval of the State and the circuit court, Mr. Ward entered a conditional guilty plea in January 2022 pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure,^[8] preserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. On February 17, 2022, the...