State v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 14 January 2022
• Docket Number: No. 20-0371,20-0371
• Citation: 968 N.W.2d 903
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Edna Jean WILSON, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

968 N.W.2d 903

STATE of Iowa, Appellee,

v.Edna Jean WILSON, Appellant.

No. 20-0371

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Submitted October 20, 2021

Filed January 14, 2022

Amended January 19, 2022

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard Bennett, Special Counsel, for appellee.

Appel, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined.

APPEL, Justice.

In this case, we consider whether evidence obtained by law enforcement after a warrantless entry into an apartment for a misdemeanor charge passes constitutional muster under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. For the reasons below, we conclude that the warrantless entry into Wilson's apartment to arrest her was unlawful. Therefore, evidence related to her conviction of possession of cocaine obtained from the unlawful entry must be suppressed. We also conclude, however, that Wilson's conviction of interference with official acts is sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful entry to permit admission of evidence of her own illegal conduct under the "new crime exception" to the exclusionary rule. So, Wilson's conviction for possession of cocaine is reversed, while her conviction of interference with official acts is affirmed.

I. Factual and Procedural Background.

A. Investigation and Arrest. Based on our review of the record, including the transcript of the suppression hearing and the exhibits, including bodycam videos of the incident,¹ we make the following findings of fact.

On July 5, 2019, Jamie Miller, a uniformed Ames police officer, was dispatched to a fourplex apartment building in Ames to investigate a noise complaint in violation of an Ames municipal ordinance. Once Miller arrived, he could hear noise while he was in the common hallway of the fourplex apartment. Miller, however, did not have equipment to measure the sound level necessary to determine if there was a violation of the noise ordinance but admitted that the level required for such a violation was "very high." Instead, Miller proceeded to knock on the door to the apartment. A woman came to the door and opened it between six to twelve inches in a guarded fashion in response to the knock. Miller identified himself as a police officer, explained that there had been a noise complaint, and proceeded to ask the woman for her name and some identification. Wilson initially refused to provide Miller with a name, stating she did not have to do so. Miller repeated his request several times, and eventually Wilson provided Miller with the name "Ebony."

Miller continued to press Wilson, asking for her complete name. After an unproductive exchange in which Wilson stated several times that she wanted her lawyer called, Wilson attempted to shut the door to her apartment. In response, Miller put his left hand on the doorway and his foot six inches across the threshold to prevent Wilson from shutting the door. Wilson asked Miller to remove his foot from her door six times, which Wilson refused to do. Wilson asked Miller where his warrant was, drawing a reply from Miller that he did not need a search warrant for her name.

Miller admitted that when he put his left hand on the door and foot six inches into the apartment, he had not determined that Wilson had provided a false name, nor did he have reason to believe that Wilson possessed weapons or was engaged in drug violations.

After Miller prevented Wilson from closing her door, Wilson then provided Miller with a different name—Destiny Miller—after she glanced at Miller's name tag. Another uniformed Ames police officer on the scene, Adam McPherson, used the police database but was unable to find a "Destiny Miller" with the same birth date as provided by Wilson. In order to determine the true name of the occupant of the apartment, McPherson used his computer to search utilities records and determined that the person responsible for utilities at the apartment was Edna Wilson. When Miller confronted her with the name of Edna Wilson, Wilson confirmed that it was her name.

Upon confirmation that her name was Edna Wilson, and not Destiny Miller, Miller decided to arrest Wilson for obstruction of justice by providing the police with a false name. Miller advised Wilson that she was under arrest, stepped further into the apartment, and began the process of placing her in handcuffs. As the officers entered the apartment to arrest Wilson, McPherson saw Wilson throw an object from her hand. A close look at the bodycam video shows that the object was thrown around the time when the two officers grasped Wilson's arms to effectuate the arrest. Miller first held Wilson's left arm while McPherson was approaching Wilson. Then, as McPherson was getting closer, Wilson quickly stretched out her free right hand to toss away the vial. Immediately after Wilson threw the object away, McPherson was able to grab and handcuff Wilson's right hand. After both hands were handcuffed, she started to twist, making it hard for the officer to secure her arrest. The officers later observed a white powdery residue on the floor and a small vial. They also located a marijuana joint and a baggie containing two grams of marijuana.

During the arrest, Wilson protested using profanity, accused the police of harassment, and asked others in the apartment to call her lawyer. She was not generally cooperative as Miller and McPherson tried to handcuff her behind her back, twisting her body and arms in a fashion that made the arrest more difficult than it needed to be. Miller suffered a cut and scrape to his left arm as a result of his effort to handcuff Wilson. After Wilson's arrest, McPherson applied for a search warrant for the apartment based upon what officers observed inside the apartment. The search warrant was issued, and the police executed the warrant. The white substance in the vial later tested as .6 grams of cocaine salt.

The State charged Wilson with interference with official acts causing bodily injury, possession of marijuana, second offense, and possession of cocaine, first offense. The cocaine charge was later amended to a second offense. Wilson pleaded not guilty and waived speedy trial.

B. Motion to Suppress. Wilson filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the officer made an illegal warrantless entry into her home, and then used the information obtained from the illegal entry to obtain a search warrant. Wilson argued that a warrantless entry into the home was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The State countered that Miller had no reasonable expectation of privacy because she opened the door of the residence and was in plain view when the officers determined to arrest her. The State further asserted that the evidence was admissible under the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule. According to the State, the new crime was interference with official acts when Wilson hindered or resisted her arrest.

The district court denied the motion to suppress. The district court found that there was no question that by placing his hand on the door and foot past the door threshold, the officer broke the plane of Wilson's apartment. Relying on United States v. Santana , 427 U.S. 38, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976), however, the district court found that Wilson had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the entryway to the apartment. Further, the district court observed that a crime was being committed in the presence of the police officers, namely, harassment of public officials by providing a false name. As a result, the officers had a right to arrest Miller.

After the motion to suppress was denied, Wilson submitted to a bench trial pursuant to an agreement with the State. The State amended count I to interference with official acts, a simple misdemeanor, and agreed to dismiss the possession of marijuana charge. The trial court found Wilson guilty of the count I interference charge and of the count III charge of possession of cocaine, second offense.

C. Appeal. Wilson appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress and that there was insufficient evidence to support the State's interference charge. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals assumed, without deciding, that the initial entry by Miller violated the Fourth Amendment. But when Wilson resisted arrest, the court of appeals observed that "she created probable cause that she was committing a new crime." According to the court of appeals, when Wilson resisted arrest, she provided law enforcement with new grounds to arrest her. Consequently, the court of appeals held that the narcotics discovered as a result of Miller's lawful arrest were not subject to suppression and affirmed the district court's judgment.

Wilson sought further review, which we granted.

II. Standard of Review.

"When a defendant challenges a district court's denial of a motion to suppress based upon the deprivation of a state or federal constitutional right, our standard of review is de novo." State v. Coffman , 914 N.W.2d 240, 244 (Iowa 2018) (quoting State v. Storm , 898 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Iowa 2017) ). "We examine the whole record and ‘make an independent evaluation of the totality of the circumstances.’ " Id. (quoting Storm , 898 N.W.2d at 144 ). "Each case must be evaluated in light of its unique circumstances." State v. Kurth , 813 N.W.2d 270, 272 (Iowa 2012) (quoting State v. Krogmann , 804 N.W.2d 518, 523 (Iowa 2011) ). In seeking to sustain an exception to the warrant requirement, the state bears the burden of proof. Welsh v. Wisconsin , 466 U.S. 740, 750, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984) ; Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573, 586–87, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980).

III. Analysis.

A. Positions of the Parties.

1. Wilson. Wilson asserts that Miller...