Woods v. State
| Docket Number | S-22-0125 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 2023 |
| Citation | 527 P.3d 264 |
| Parties | Myron Martize WOODS, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Wyoming, Respondent. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Lauren McLane, Faculty Director, Defender Aid Clinic, University of Wyoming College of Law; Luke Dainty, Student Director. Argument by Mr. Dainty.
Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Kristen R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General; John J. Woykovsky, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Woykovsky.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN JJ.
[¶1] Myron Martize Woods challenges his conviction for misdemeanor interference with a peace officer. Mr. Woods’ conviction stems from resisting when police officers entered his home without a warrant to effectuate his arrest for a misdemeanor crime. We reverse Mr. Woods’ conviction because the officers were not engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties.
[¶2] We state the dispositive issue as:
Whether the officers arrested Mr. Woods while engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties as required to convict him under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(a) (LexisNexis 2021).
[¶3] The key facts are undisputed. On February 13, 2020, at approximately 8:00 p.m., the Cheyenne Police Department received an emergency call about a verbal disturbance on 24th Street. Officer Warren and another officer responded. They arrived at the residence of Brittany Jackson and found Mr. Woods, his wife, Evelyn Rodriguez, and his ex-girlfriend, Ms. Jackson, at the scene. The officers separately interviewed each person and learned: Mr. Woods and Ms. Jackson shared a son, the two had been arguing since earlier in the evening when Ms. Jackson observed Mr. Woods at Walmart without their son, whom he was supposed to be watching, and the argument moved to Ms. Jackson's house after Mr. Woods brought their son over in his car. Ms. Jackson told Officer Warren that Mr. Woods had grabbed her neck and pushed her when she was trying to get their son out of the car. Officer Warren did not initially observe any marks on Ms. Jackson. After the interviews, Officer Warren determined there was not enough probable cause to arrest Mr. Woods.
[¶4] At approximately 10:00 p.m., Officer Warren and his supervisor, Sergeant Young, returned to Ms. Jackson's residence after she called asking for further investigation of the case. After further investigation and observing marks on her neck, Officer Warren believed he had probable cause to arrest Mr. Woods for the crime of misdemeanor domestic battery under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-511(a) (LexisNexis 2021). Officer Warren did not try to obtain an arrest warrant, believing it was not required within twenty-four hours of the alleged offense.1
[¶5] At approximately 11:30 p.m., Officer Warren, Sergeant Young, and another officer arrived at Mr. Woods’ home. Officer Warren's body camera captured the encounter. The officers initially approached Mr. Woods’ front door and knocked. Ms. Rodriguez, who was visibly pregnant, opened the door and remained at the threshold of the home. Mr. Woods also came to the door and stood behind Ms. Rodriguez.
[¶6] The officers asked Mr. Woods to step out of his home because they wanted to talk about "what happened on 24th Street[.]" Mr. Woods declined and stated, "we can talk from in here, what's going on?" The officers then questioned Mr. Woods about what occurred on 24th Street. Mr. Woods repeatedly stated nothing happened.
[¶7] After asking more questions, the officers again asked Mr. Woods to step outside. When Mr. Woods refused, Officer Warren reached across the threshold of the home to grab Mr. Woods’ wrist and pull him out. Mr. Woods pulled his hand away from Officer Warren and the officers entered the house, pushing through Ms. Rodriguez, to arrest Mr. Woods. The officers did not inform Mr. Woods he was under arrest until they had fully entered the house and repeatedly told him to put his hands behind his back. The officers struggled with Mr. Woods for over two minutes before handcuffing him and taking him out of the house.
[¶8] The State filed an information charging Mr. Woods with one count of misdemeanor domestic battery and one count of misdemeanor interference with a peace officer. Mr. Woods filed a motion to suppress. The circuit court held a suppression hearing in June 2020. During the hearing, Mr. Woods challenged the officers’ warrantless arrest in his home and sought to exclude all evidence related to the arrest. The court denied the motion.
[¶9] The circuit court held a jury trial in April 2021. Mr. Woods was acquitted of domestic battery but found guilty of misdemeanor interference with a peace officer under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(a). The court sentenced Mr. Woods to a term of incarceration for 365 days, credit for 10 days served, with 346 days suspended for one year of probation. Mr. Woods appealed to the district court, and it affirmed his conviction in May 2022.
[¶10] We granted Mr. Woods’ petition for writ of review.
[¶11] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(a) states:
(a) A person commits a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both, if he knowingly obstructs, impedes or interferes with or resists arrest by a peace officer while engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties.
(emphasis added).
[¶12] This Court has stated "[t]he legality of [a defendant's] arrest ... is elemental" to the crime of interference with a peace officer because such interference "is not a crime unless the officer is ‘engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties.’ " Mickelson v. State , 906 P.2d 1020, 1022–23 (Wyo. 1995) ( Mickelson II ) (quoting Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(a) and (b) ); see also Mickelson v. State , 886 P.2d 247, 250–51 (Wyo. 1994) ( Mickelson I ).
[¶13] Whether an officer's performance of his official duties is "lawful" is a question of law we review de novo. See Mickelson II , 906 P.2d at 1022–24 ; Mickelson I , 886 P.2d at 249–51 ; see also Hawken v. State , 2022 WY 77, ¶ 12, 511 P.3d 176, 180–81 (Wyo. 2022). We afford no deference to the prior courts’ conclusions of law. See Best v. Best , 2015 WY 133, ¶ 7, 357 P.3d 1149, 1151 (Wyo. 2015) ; Matthews v. State , 2014 WY 54, ¶¶ 1, 12, 322 P.3d 1279, 1281 (Wyo. 2014) (); see also Bear Cloud v. State , 2013 WY 18, ¶¶ 13–14, 294 P.3d 36, 40 (Wyo. 2013) (citation omitted).
[¶14] Mr. Woods contends the officers’ warrantless entry into his home to effectuate a warrantless arrest was unlawful because it violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus all the evidence related to the illegal seizure should have been excluded.2 The State asserts Mr. Woods’ motion to suppress was not a proper pretrial motion, and even if the motion was proper, there was no suppressible evidence. Because we conclude the officers were not "engaged in the lawful performance" of their official duties when they entered the home without a warrant—an element necessary to convict under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(a) —we do not need to address the other issues raised by the parties in their briefing.
[¶15] In evaluating whether the officers’ conduct comported with Mr. Woods’ Fourth Amendment rights, we begin with the language of the Fourth Amendment itself, which protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures[.]" U.S. Const. amend. IV. The United States Supreme Court has stated "physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed." Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573, 585–86, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980) (citation omitted). It "draw[s] a firm line at the entrance to the house." Lange v. California , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 2018, 210 L. Ed. 2d 486 (2021) (quoting Payton , 445 U.S. at 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371 ); see also Kyllo v. United States , 533 U.S. 27, 37, 121 S. Ct. 2038, 150 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2001) ("[A]ny physical invasion of the structure of the home, ‘by even a fraction of an inch,’ was too much ... and there is certainly no exception to the warrant requirement for the officer who barely cracks open the front door and sees nothing but the nonintimate rug on the vestibule floor." (citing Silverman v. United States , 365 U.S. 505, 512, 81 S. Ct. 679, 5 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1961) ). The Fourth Amendment therefore generally requires officers to obtain a warrant before entering a home without permission. Lange , 141 S. Ct. at 2017 (citation omitted).
[¶16] This Court has also acknowledged "the important role of the Fourth Amendment in relation to the home." Hawken , ¶ 15, 511 P.3d at 181 ; Fuller v. State , 481 P.3d 1131, 1133 (Wyo. 2021). We have stated "a bright line has been drawn at the threshold of a person's dwelling which cannot be crossed to effectuate the warrantless arrest of a suspect absent consent or exigent circumstances." Mickelson II , 906 P.2d at 1023 (citing Payton , 445 U.S. at 589–90, 100 S.Ct. 1371 ); see also Hawken , ¶ 15, 511 P.3d at 181–82 () (citation omitted). Thus, "[w]arrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless they are justified by probable cause and established exceptions." Hawken , ¶ 16, 511 P.3d at 182 (quoting Fuller , ¶ 9, 481 P.3d at 1134 ). The State bears the burden to prove an exception to the warrant requirement for entering a home applies. E.g. , Fenton v. State , 2007 WY 51, ¶ 2, 154 P.3d 974, 975 (Wyo. 2007) (quoting Pena v. State , 2004 WY 115, ¶ 29, 98 P.3d 857, 870 (Wyo. 2004) ); see also Fuller , ¶ 10, 481 P.3d at 1133.
[¶17] Officer Warren and the other officers entered Mr. Woods’ home without any type of warrant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial