Whitlow v. Commonwealth
Decision Date | 13 June 2019 |
Docket Number | 2018-SC-000188-MR |
Parties | Suzanne Marie WHITLOW, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Jerry Lee Wright, JERRY L. WRIGHT, P.S.C.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Andy Beshear, Attorney General of Kentucky, William Robert Long, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals.
Suzanne Marie Whitlow appeals as a matter of right from the Fayette Circuit Court judgment sentencing her to twenty years in prison. Whitlow was driving while intoxicated in Lexington, Kentucky, when she struck and killed two pedestrians standing on a sidewalk. After the incident, Whitlow was transported to the hospital for minor injuries, and a police officer obtained a court order directing the hospital to test her blood for drugs and alcohol. Whitlow moved to suppress the blood test results, arguing that the "court order" was not a search warrant and therefore the testing violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied her motion, and Whitlow entered a conditional guilty plea to four charges, including two counts of second-degree manslaughter, specifically preserving her right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion. Finding no error, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.
In the early morning hours of October 29, 2016, Whitlow operated a black Dodge vehicle which left the roadway and drove onto a city sidewalk, striking and killing a Louisville police officer and a University of Kentucky employee. After the incident, Whitlow was transported to the University of Kentucky Medical Center for treatment of minor injuries she sustained.1 While at the hospital, a Lexington police officer met with Whitlow and immediately observed a strong odor of alcohol on her breath. The officer informed Whitlow of her rights and asked if she would be willing to speak with him. She gave verbal consent that she understood her rights and was willing to speak with the officer, but she refused to consent to the taking of a blood sample.
After the officer’s conversation with Whitlow, he prepared an affidavit titled "Affidavit in Support of and Petition for Court Order." The affidavit, in its entirety, states:
The officer signed the affidavit, which was subscribed and sworn to before a Fayette District Court judge on October 29, 2016, at 5:30 a.m. The judge then issued a "Court Order," which states as follows:
The order was signed by the district court judge at 5:30 a.m. on October 29, 2016, and executed by the officer, who took possession of the blood sample taken from Whitlow by a nurse at the hospital. Whitlow’s blood alcohol content was tested approximately three hours after the incident and measured 0.237 grams per 100 milliliters, nearly three times the legal limit.
On February 7, 2017, Whitlow was charged with two counts of second-degree manslaughter, one count of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with aggravating circumstances, second offense, and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree (PFO II). On April 24, 2017, Whitlow filed a motion to suppress the blood test, asserting that the taking of her blood pursuant to the court order violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Whitlow and the Commonwealth submitted briefs on the issue, and the trial court conducted a hearing on June 8, 2017.
Whitlow argued correctly that the statute cited by the officer in the affidavit, Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 189A.105(3)(b), is not an actual statute because while there is a paragraph (3), there is no subsection (b) in that paragraph. Further, Whitlow stated that the applicable statute, KRS 189A.105(2)(b), provides no authority for a court to issue a "court order" to obtain a blood sample and that absent the requisite search warrant, the blood test violated the Fourth Amendment. The Commonwealth responded that in this case, a search warrant and a court order were synonymous but even if the court held otherwise, the blood test was conducted in good faith as a result of reasonable reliance on the court’s order.
At...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whittington v. State
...from other states applying the same reasoning to court orders authorizing other types of Fourth Amendment searches. Whitlow v. Kentucky , 575 S.W.3d 663, 669 (Ky. 2019) ("While a search warrant is a type of court order, obviously not all court orders constitute search warrants. Here, the co......
-
Commonwealth v. Garrett
...court’s application of the law to the facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law." Whitlow v. Commonwealth , 575 S.W.3d 663 (Ky. 2019) (quoting 585 S.W.3d 788 Simpson v. Commonwealth, 474 S.W.3d 544, 547 (Ky. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted))......
-
K.H. v. Commonwealth
...trial court as to factual findings, but with the trial court's legal conclusions being subject to de novo review. Whitlow v. Commonwealth , 575 S.W.3d 663, 668 (Ky. 2019).ANALYSIS K.H. says his case presents a unique scenario in our jurisprudence – he was improperly stopped and frisked in c......
-
Whittington v. State
...from other states applying the same reasoning to court orders authorizing other types of Fourth Amendment searches. Whitlow v. Kentucky, 575 S.W.3d 663, 669 (Ky. 2019) ("While a search warrant is a type of court order, obviously not all court orders constitute search warrants. Here, the cou......