State v. Youm
| Docket Number | 21-0877 |
| Decision Date | 07 April 2023 |
| Citation | 988 N.W.2d 713 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Sam Daniel ABU YOUM, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye and Robert P. Ranschau (until withdrawal), Assistant Appellate Defenders, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
In this appeal, as well as State v. Torres , 989 N.W.2d 121 (Iowa 2023), also filed today, we harmonize Caniglia v. Strom , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 1599, 209 L.Ed.2d 604 (2021), with cases allowing police to enter private residences without a warrant to render emergency assistance. In Caniglia , the United States Supreme Court held that the community caretaking exception1 to the warrant requirement did not allow police performing a welfare check to search a home and seize firearms after a suicidal man left by ambulance. Id. at 1598, 1600. The Caniglia Court, however, indicated that warrantless entries may be allowed in certain emergencies. See id. at 1599. We must decide whether this is such a case.
Des Moines police officers responded to reports of shots fired from a specific apartment balcony and a man seen lying on that balcony. Police noticed a car window shot out nearby. Stating they needed to check for injured victims, officers entered the apartment over the objections of the occupants. Officers found a spent shell casing on the balcony and a rifle in plain view in a closet. They then obtained a search warrant and found drugs and another weapon, resulting in criminal charges. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the initial warrantless entry was unconstitutional. The district court ruled the search was lawful under the emergency aid doctrine. See State v. Coffman , 914 N.W.2d 240, 244 (Iowa 2018) (). The court of appeals affirmed, and we granted the defendant's application for further review.
On our de novo review, we hold the emergency aid doctrine justified the warrantless entry and search of the apartment to look for a shooting victim, and once inside, the discovery of the shell casing and rifle in plain view in turn supported the issuance of the search warrant and discovery of the additional evidence. In our view, Caniglia left the door open for warrantless searches under these exigent circumstances. We therefore affirm the convictions.
Just after midnight on August 11, 2020, Des Moines police received calls reporting shots fired at an apartment complex. Sergeant Theodore Stroope arrived at the scene, where a witness pointed him to a specific second-floor apartment as the source of the gunfire and reported seeing a man lying on its balcony after the shooting, "kind of hunched, barely up on the railing." The same witness reported overhearing someone say "they were ... just testing it out" and "it didn't need to go that far." Officer Zachary Vander Ploeg arrived with his emergency lights activated, and as both officers approached the building, they noticed a car in the parking lot with a broken window and glass on the ground, consistent with recent gunshot damage. The officers spoke with a man, Sam Daniel Abu Youm, who was standing on the balcony and denied hearing any gunshots. Seeing the emergency lights, he asked the police why they were there.
The officers, after spending several minutes outside, walked into the building, climbed the stairs, and knocked on the apartment door in the common hallway. Another man, Joseph Odir, answered, opened the door just enough to step out, and quickly closed the door behind him. He objected to their entry without a search warrant. He appeared nervous about officers seeing something inside. Sergeant Stroope informed him that they had received reports of shots fired from that apartment and a man seen lying on the balcony and that they needed to go in to make sure no one was hurt. The officers entered over Odir's objections. Abu Youm was inside with three other men apart from Odir. Abu Youm told Sergeant Stroope that he shared the apartment with his brother. They protested the officers’ entry without a warrant and repeatedly demanded that they leave.
Officers spent less than one minute searching the apartment for injured occupants. Sergeant Stroope found a spent .45 ACP nickel-plated shell casing on the balcony. Outnumbered five to two and with a firearm unaccounted for, officers decided to handcuff the men to control the scene and protect everyone and called for backup. Abu Youm and another man locked themselves in a bedroom until a third officer arrived and coaxed them out. Sergeant Stroope explained to the men that police had received reports of shots fired and of someone lying down on their balcony. He told the men that the "public safety exception" allowed officers to enter to make sure no one had been shot. Sergeant Stroope read the men their Miranda rights, and none answered questions. Officers found a rifle in plain view on the floor of a bedroom closet. Sergeant Stroope observed that the rifle was "chambered in .45 ACP," matching the casing found on the balcony. Officers found three more .45 ACP casings on the ground immediately below the balcony.
Officers moved the men to squad cars. As they did so, Abu Youm shouted for the others to get his money out of a box in his closet. Once in the squad car, Abu Youm changed his story. He denied that he lived in the apartment and denied that he had been standing on the balcony when officers arrived.
The officers obtained and executed a search warrant. On the shelf inside the closet with the rifle, police found three shoeboxes stacked on top of each other. The first contained two loaded pistol magazines, ten eutylone pills, and medical records bearing Abu Youm's name. The second contained 228 eutylone pills and fifty-two fentanyl pills. The third contained $752 in loose bills and Abu Youm's state-issued ID card. Another box contained a loaded .32 caliber pistol. Officers found three more .45 ACP casings in the kitchen garbage can. A digital scale was found in a closet off the living room.
Abu Youm was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, with a weapons enhancement, a class "C" felony, and two counts of failure to possess a tax stamp, a class "D" felony. See Iowa Code §§ 124.401(1)(c )(8), .401(1)(c )(9), .401(1)(e ) (2020); id. §§ 453B.3, .12. He pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the drugs and weapons. Abu Youm argued that the warrantless entry was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution and that any evidence recovered through the search warrant must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. The State resisted, relying on the emergency aid doctrine of the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement.
At the suppression hearing, the officers’ bodycam recordings were admitted into evidence. Sergeant Stroope and Officer Vander Ploeg testified consistent with the bodycam recordings. Sergeant Stroope described his interactions with Odir and explained his decision to enter the apartment:
The district court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the community caretaking exception justified the officers’ entry and search of the apartment. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury found Abu Youm guilty on all counts. Abu Youm filed a motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence on constructive possession, which the district court overruled. The district court sentenced Abu Youm to a total term of incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years.
Abu Youm appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and his motion for a new trial. We transferred the case to the court of appeals, which affirmed his convictions. The court of appeals acknowledged Caniglia narrowed the community caretaking exception but still allowed police to "enter private property without a warrant when certain exigent circumstances exist, including the need to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury." The court of appeals determined that "[a]s the potential need for emergency aid was present before officers arrived at the apartment door, it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial