Frazier v. Briscoe

248 W.Va. 638

889 S.E.2d 720

Everett J. FRAZIER, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, Petitioner, v. Steve BRISCOE, Respondent.

Nos. 21-0990

21-0991

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: March 21, 2023

Filed: June 15, 2023

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Michael R. Williams, Senior Deputy Solicitor General, Elaine L. Skorich, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for the Petitioner

Shawn D. Bayliss, Esq., Bayliss Law Offices, Hurricane, West Virginia, Counsel for the Respondent

HUTCHISON, Justice:

Respondent Steve Briscoe was arrested in his home without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed elsewhere. Cases interpreting the United States and West Virginia Constitutions provide that when a law enforcement officer arrests someone in their home without a warrant, the officer must articulate some "exigent circumstance" that made an immediate, warrantless arrest imperative. The arresting officer articulated no urgent need to arrest Briscoe and admitted he would have obtained a warrant from an impartial magistrate if Briscoe had not answered another officer's knock at the door.

Evidence adduced during the arrest suggested Briscoe might have driven while intoxicated from the scene of the misdemeanor to his home. The Petitioner, the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles ("the DMV"), applied the evidence in three separate decisions to revoke Briscoe's driver's license. However, now-repealed West Virginia Code § 17C-5A-2(f)(2) (2015) ¹ provided that the DMV's revocation decisions were valid only if Briscoe had been "lawfully" arrested or "lawfully" taken into custody. It is axiomatic that a lawful arrest is one that follows constitutional requirements. Briscoe appealed the three revocation decisions to the circuit court.

The circuit court found that Briscoe had not been lawfully arrested without a warrant. The circuit court reversed the DMV's revocation decisions and found them to be clearly wrong in light of the now-repealed West Virginia Code § 17C-5A-2(f)(2). The DMV appeals the circuit court's rulings, but we see no error and affirm the circuit court.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On November 28, 2019, Thanksgiving morning, the Putnam County 911 center received a call about people arguing at a residence in Hurricane, West Virginia. At least three sheriff's deputies were dispatched, including Deputy Joshua Warner. Upon arriving at the residence, the deputies spoke with a woman who said she had been arguing with respondent Briscoe. The woman alleged that the argument had turned physical, and Deputy Warner saw a mark on the woman's chest. Deputy Warner later wrote in a report that the woman said Briscoe "had just left her residence" in a black car.

A search then began for Briscoe; as Deputy Warner later said, "the whole county was looking for his car." Minutes later, deputies found Briscoe's black car in the driveway of Briscoe's home several miles away in Scott Depot, West Virginia. Believing Briscoe was inside the home, a deputy knocked on the door. Deputy Warner later testified that, if Briscoe "hadn't answered the door," he "would have got a warrant on him for domestic battery."

Briscoe answered the door, and Deputy Warner placed him under arrest for misdemeanor domestic battery. ² Deputy Warner was adamant that he arrested Briscoe solely for this offense. As he testified at a later DMV hearing, the deputy said he "[p]laced him under arrest for domestic battery." A question by the DMV's lawyer affirmed that the deputy's "probable cause for placing Mr. Briscoe under arrest was based on an alleged domestic offense." Once the arrest was complete, Deputy Warner said he transported Briscoe "to the Putnam County Courthouse for processing."

The woman who alleged domestic violence told deputies that Briscoe "was driving ‘drunk’ " when he left her residence. Deputy Warner wrote in a report that "[w]hile speaking to [Briscoe at his home] I could smell a strong odor of alcohol." The deputy also wrote that he asked Briscoe only one question at his home: "if he had been drinking while he was at this location and he stated no." Upon arriving at the courthouse, Deputy Warner began processing Briscoe by filling out a six-page form titled "DUI Information Sheet" related to the offense of driving under the influence (or "DUI"). Deputy Warner checked boxes on the form that Briscoe had "slurred speech," an "odor of alcoholic beverage," and "bloodshot, watery eyes." At 11:20 a.m., Deputy Warner began speaking with Briscoe by reading Miranda warnings from the DUI Information Sheet. The deputy then asked two questions from the form: "were you operating a vehicle" and "where?" Briscoe answered, "yes sir" and "Scott Depot." The deputy wrote that, thereafter, Briscoe refused to answer any more of the questions on the form.

Deputy Warner then turned to the portion of the DUI Information Sheet titled "pre-arrest screening" that outlined several field sobriety tests. ³ Following the outline on the form, the deputy performed a horizontal gaze nystagmus test on Briscoe which the deputy said showed signs of impairment. Briscoe was then instructed on how to perform a walk and turn test; the deputy wrote that Briscoe refused to perform the test and "stated he wanted his lawyer." The deputy recorded, however, that Briscoe could not maintain his balance. Finally, Deputy Warner asked Briscoe twice to take a secondary chemical test (a breathalyzer), but Briscoe refused.

The deputy later filed a criminal complaint against Briscoe for three charges: misdemeanor domestic battery; misdemeanor domestic assault; and driving under the influence. At oral argument, counsel represented that these criminal charges were later dismissed for reasons not apparent from the record. However, for purposes of this appeal, the deputy also forwarded the DUI Information Sheet and other documents to the DMV.

After receiving these documents, in two separate orders dated December 11, 2019, the DMV suspended Briscoe's driver's license. The first order suspended his license for driving under the influence, the second for refusing to submit to the designated secondary chemical test. Asserting that his warrantless arrest in his home had been unlawful, Briscoe objected to the DMV's orders and requested a hearing before the DMV's Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH"). A hearing was held before the OAH on August 7, 2020. Deputy Briscoe was the sole witness to testify, and he testified that he never saw Briscoe operate his vehicle and that he encountered Briscoe "inside his residence." ⁴

The OAH affirmed the DMV's two orders suspending Briscoe's license in a decision dated April 9, 2021 (and which, by its terms, took effect on April 23, 2021). The OAH found that Briscoe had been "lawfully arrested" and that a preponderance of the evidence showed Briscoe had driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and had refused to take a secondary chemical test.

Five days later, on April 14, 2021, Briscoe appealed the OAH's decision to the circuit court, and he again asserted that the deputy's warrantless arrest of him in his home had been unlawful. Briscoe also filed a motion asking the circuit court for a stay of the OAH's decision; ⁵ a hearing on the motion was held on May 20, 2021. Briscoe testified to the circuit court that his livelihood rested on his job as a delivery driver for a pizza restaurant. Counsel for the DMV reminded Briscoe about the effective date of the OAH decision, and asked if Briscoe had "been driving since April 23 ^rd of this year?" Briscoe answered that he had, but said he was unaware he could not drive because his lawyer left him "under the impression that until we had this motion hearing" he could keep driving. Briscoe's lawyer then intervened and said, "if it's an error, blame it on me." At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court granted Briscoe's motion to stay the OAH's decision upholding the DMV's first two suspension orders.

It appears that, following the May 20 ^th hearing, counsel for the DMV sent a copy of the hearing transcript to her client. On June 24, 2021, the DMV entered a third suspension order declaring that the DMV's "evidence shows that you drove on May 20, 2021, while your license was suspended for driving under the influence." This third order declared that the DMV was suspending Briscoe's license for a period of six months.

Briscoe promptly appealed the third suspension order to the circuit court and again sought a stay. In an order dated July 9, 2021, the circuit court declared it was halting the DMV's "crusade to strip a pizza delivery driver of a license to earn a living pending the resolution of this proceeding." The circuit court stayed the DMV's third suspension order and prohibited the DMV from instituting any further suspension against Briscoe arising from the facts of this case.

Thereafter, the circuit court heard arguments from the parties on Briscoe's central contention: that the deputy's warrantless arrest in Briscoe's home had been unlawful. In an order dated November 8, 2021, the circuit court agreed with Briscoe and reversed the OAH's decision revoking Briscoe's license. Under now-repealed West Virginia Code § 17C-5A-2(f)(2), the OAH was required to assess whether Briscoe "was lawfully placed under arrest for an offense involving driving under the influence of alcohol" or was " lawfully taken into custody for the purpose of administering a secondary test[.]" The circuit court's analysis centered on the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ⁶ and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution. ⁷ They provide that a warrantless arrest in the home is presumptively unlawful unless the arresting officer shows two things: probable cause to believe an offense had been committed; and exigent circumstances which made an immediate arrest imperative. Syl. pt. 2, State v. Mullins , 177 W. Va. 531, 355...