Williams v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 05 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019-CA-1492-MR,2019-CA-1492-MR |
| Parties | SHEILA WILLIAMS APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
To understand our decision, we must relate the facts in greater detail than we typically deem necessary. The following facts are primarily drawn from the suppression hearing, at which Henry was the lone witness. Before reciting the facts, we must make some prefatory notations and disclaimers. The entire video footage from Henry's body camera was not played at the hearing.1 For example, footage of the initial stop of the vehicle was not played. The body camera footage was also not played straight through; instead, it was played in segments, with intervals between those segments devoted to questions by Williams's attorney. Also, the relevant events occurred after dark in a poorly lit area with precipitation falling, so it is sometimes difficult to hear clearly and determine with certainty who is speaking. Knowing who said what is rendered even more difficult since therewere other officers present, but they did not testify, and their identities were not discussed at the suppression hearing. Henry admitted at the suppression hearing that it is sometimes "very difficult to understand" what is being said.
In January 2019, Henry performed a "status check" on a vehicle he encountered while on patrol, which in practical terms means he ran the vehicle's license plate number through a computer. The computer told Henry to verify insurance coverage, so he stopped it for that reason alone. Williams's husband was driving; Williams was riding in the front seat and her brother in the rear. Henry asked all three occupants for identification, and all three complied.
Dispatch told Henry that there was an active warrant for Williams's brother for a probation violation related to an underlying heroin charge, so Henry removed the brother from the vehicle and arrested him.2 Williams had to exit the vehicle in order for her brother to leave it, but she re-entered it, presumably due to the winter weather. As Williams was letting her brother leave the vehicle, Henry asked the occupants if there was "anything in the car I need to know about," to which Williams responded simply, "No." The deputy again asked, "Nothing at all?" and Williams again responded, "No." At some point during the stop, Henry learnedSheila Williams had pending drug charges in Kenton County, Kentucky.3 In the course of effectuating the arrest, Henry asked Williams's brother several questions, including whether there were drugs in the car. Williams's brother responded in the negative.
After Williams's brother was secured, Henry returned to Williams's vehicle and ordered Williams to exit it, without explaining why.4 Henry yet again asked her if there was "going to be anything in that vehicle"; Williams yet again answered in the negative. Williams explained the driver was her husband, the car was theirs, and the arrestee was her brother.
Henry told Williams that her brother had a warrant for his arrest for a probation violation related to a possession-of-heroin charge. Henry then asked Williams if she or her husband would "have a problem if I took a look in the car, just to make sure that there's nothing illegal in it?" Williams did not respond for several seconds, then nonreponsively mentioned they had "all of our clothes andeverything" in the car. Henry again asked Williams if there "was going to be anything in it" and she, once again, said no. Henry then asked if they "have a problem" with him searching the car because Williams's brother had a "warrant for heroin."
Williams's husband stated something to the effect that the warrant was not for him, whereupon Henry again asked if he could search the car. Williams's husband asked why they had to "go through all that for," and Henry responded that he wanted to search the car to see if Williams's brother put anything "heroin-related" in it since he was an "admitted heroin user" and had "previous heroin charges." Williams's husband's response is not wholly discernible, but it sounds like he told Henry that he could "look back there in the backseat where he [Williams's brother] was sitting or whatever." Henry then asked Williams's husband what was "gonna be in here" and her husband said "nothing."
Henry soon thereafter curiously said he was asking to try to help Williams's brother because he was on probation, though Henry did not explain how searching the vehicle would logically help Williams's brother. Henry again said that since there had been someone with a warrant "in relation to heroin" in the vehicle, he wanted to search the vehicle to make sure Williams's brother had not placed anything in it related to heroin or other drugs. Williams's husband thenapparently gave consent for the search, but exactly what he said to Henry to give consent is not discernible.5 Only then did Henry tell Williams's husband to exit the vehicle. Henry later testified that he believed the consent to search encompassed "all contents of the vehicle."
Henry shined his flashlight on objects in the driver's side of the vehicle, which are not immediately recognizable in the video, and asked Williams's husband if they were marijuana roaches. His response is indistinct. Henry then asked if the presence of marijuana was why they did not want to let him in the car at first,6 and Williams's husband said, "Well, basically." Henry then asked if there was any "weed" in the car and said, "Trust me, I am not out here looking for a little bit of personal use weed." Williams's husband admitted there might be a "dime"7 of marijuana in the center console. Henry then resumed searching.
Soon thereafter, Henry exclaimed, The video does not show the items to which Henry is referring as it does not depict the search of the purse, but he later testified that a "kit" refers to items used to abuse drugs. It is uncontested that Henry did not separately ask permission from Williams before searching the purse. Henry then asked who the purse belongs to but then said he could "take a wild guess at whose it is." Although not explained, Henry's "wild guess" was logically premised upon Williams having been the lone female occupant of the vehicle, especially since he had already remarked "let's talk to her" upon finding the drug kit. Henry arrested Williams soon thereafter.
Williams was indicted for two counts of possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (one for heroin and one for cocaine) and for misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. She later filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from her purse, arguing only that her husband lacked the authority to grant permission for a search of her purse and that the arrest of her brother had not given Henry the right to search her purse.
In its post-hearing written response, the Commonwealth conceded that the search "was not done as part of a search incident to arrest" Williams's brother. Instead, the Commonwealth argued that Williams's husband's consent for the search was "unlimited," and Williams had not revoked it. Alternatively, theCommonwealth argued Henry had probable cause to search Williams's purse based upon: Williams's brother's prior controlled substance conviction, Williams and her husband having lied about whether the vehicle contained contraband, and the presence of marijuana in the console of the vehicle "very close to" Williams's purse.
In its order denying Williams's motion to suppress, the trial court found that Henry asked Williams's husband "approximately 5 times" before the husband gave consent for the search, though the court concluded the consent was voluntarily given. The court agreed that the arrest of Williams's brother did not provide a valid basis to search Williams's purse. The court also agreed with Williams that her husband lacked common authority over Williams's purse sufficient to consent to a search of it. Ultimately, however, the court agreed with the Commonwealth that the search of the purse was properly based upon probable cause due to: its being in the vehicle, Williams's brother's prior controlled substance conviction, the probation violation-based warrant for the brother's arrest, Williams and her husband having lied about whether the vehicle contained contraband, and the discovery of marijuana near the purse.
Williams then entered into a conditional guilty plea, the terms of which permitted her to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. See Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 8.09. Williams was ultimately sentenced to atotal of three years' imprisonment but was placed on probation for three years. She then filed this appeal.
Before we begin our analysis, we must address the discrepancy between the issues Williams raised in the trial court and those she raises here. In the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial