Roberts v. Commonwealth

905 S.E.2d 485

82 Va.App. 61

Ryan Douglas ROBERTS

v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 1427-23-2

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

September 17, 2024

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, Cheryl V. Higgins, Judge

Elliott M. Harding, Charlottesville (Harding Counsel, PLLC, on brief), for appellant.

Ken J. Baldassari, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Raphael and White Argued at Richmond, Virginia

OPINION BY JUDGE STUART A. RAPHAEL

₆₆ChalIenging his firearm and drug convictions, Ryan Douglas Roberts argues that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence that the police officer discovered from his warrantless entry into the car in which Roberts was asleep in the passenger seat. The car was parked near a store in parking lot that the officer knew to be the site of overdose incidents. When the officer approached the passenger window, he saw that Roberts was grasping a pistol that was tucked into his waistband. After the officer tapped twice on the window, Roberts awoke. But he appeared intoxicated from drugs or alcohol, his speech was slurred, and he did not answer the officer’s questions. The officer announced that he was opening the door to secure the weapon. But as the officer did so, he saw a bag of drugs in plain view sticking out of Roberts’s pants pocket.

We hold that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment because his warrantless entry into the car was reasonable under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement. The officer could reasonably believe that Roberts’s holding a gun while he was disoriented and apparently intoxicated endangered bystanders, the officer, and Roberts himself. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Background

At dusk on April 10, 2022, Officer Daniel Shetler of the Albemarle County Police Department was conducting a "protective patrol" of a Walmart parking lot. Shetler had been called there several times for overdose incidents, both in the store and in the parking lot.

Shetler spotted a parked car in which a man (who turned out to be Roberts) was "either asleep or unconscious" in the passenger seat. Roberts’s head was leaning against the window. His eyes were closed, and his mouth was open. Shetler got out of his patrol car to see if Roberts needed assistance. The front-facing camera of the patrol car showed a bustling parking lot, with several store patrons walking to and from ₆₇their cars. As Shetler approached the passenger-side window, he saw that Roberts was "grasping the handle" of a handgun in "plain view," tucked into his waistband.

Roberts did not stir when Shetler first knocked on the window. After Shetler knocked again, Roberts woke up, appearing "a little startled and a little dazed." Shetler spoke to Roberts through the window, but Roberts did not answer. Roberts’s "eyes were glazed over, his speech was slow and slurred and his eyes were having difficulty tracking." Shetler asked Roberts to put his hands up and asked if he was okay. Roberts raised his hands but "didn’t really communicate or answer any of [Shetler’s] questions." It appeared to Shetler that Roberts was "impaired or under the influence of something based on his demeanor and his inability to communicate."

Shetler opened the car door and told Roberts that he was "going to remove the handgun for my safety and his." As Shetler opened the door and retrieved the gun, he saw a plastic baggie sticking out of Roberts’s right-side pants pocket. The plastic baggie contained a white substance. Shetler’s body-camera footage shows the baggie in plain view. As Roberts kept his hands up, Shetler slowly reached in and removed the gun, placing it on the roof of the car.

Shetler again asked if Roberts was okay. Roberts responded that his girlfriend had gone inside the Walmart. Donning gloves from his back pocket, Shetler said, "I’m just going to quick[ly] grab this, okay," and he removed the baggie from Roberts’s pocket. Shetler asked Roberts to step out of the car. Roberts briefly tried to flee, but Shetler "assisted [Roberts] to the ground" and arrested him. Roberts admitted that the plastic baggie contained heroin. He also admitted to being a felon. Shetler patted him down. During the pat down, Shetler found another bag of heroin and a third bag that Roberts admitted contained methamphetamine.

Roberts was indicted by a grand jury on two counts of possession of a Schedule I or II controlled substance in violation of Code § 18.2-250 and one count of possession of a ₆₈firearm within ten years of a felony conviction, in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. Roberts moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that he was "unlawfully seized from the moment Officer Shetler opened the car door."

The trial court denied the motion after a suppression hearing in which Officer Shetler was the only witness. The court found that Shetler approached the car because Roberts appeared to be passed out in the passenger seat and that Shetler’s doing so was not pretextual. The court said that, after Shetler saw the gun and awakened Roberts, Shetler was reasonably concerned that "[s]omeone who is under the influence of illegal substances or legal substances to the point that it affects their speech and their manner and demean[o]r may not be in the condition to possess a firearm." Roberts’s "eyes were glassed over and his speech was slurred." The court noted that, while this could have been because Roberts was sleeping, it also was "reasonably consistent" with "someone [who] had been using illegal substances" or was "under the influence." The court found that the incident "demand[ed] an immediate response from the officer." At that point, the court concluded, Shetler could remove the gun, both for Roberts’s safety and his own. And once the car door was opened, the court concluded, the plastic baggie was in plain view and properly seized.

Under a plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling, Roberts pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a Schedule I or II controlled substance (Code § 18.2-250) and to one count of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony more than ten years earlier (Code § 18.2-308.2). The trial court imposed a combined sentence of 17 years’ incarceration with all but 3 years and 5 months suspended. Roberts noted a timely appeal.

Analysis

[1–3] The only question presented here is whether the trial court should have suppressed the evidence that resulted from Officer Shetler’s warrantless entry into the vehicle. The standard of appellate review has been long settled. "A defendant’s₆₉ claim that evidence was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment presents a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo on appeal." Murphy v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 568, 573, 570 S.E.2d 836 (2002). "[W]e give deference to the factual findings of the trial court and independently determine whether the manner in which the evidence was obtained meets the requirements of the Fourth Amendment." Id. See also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (holding that "determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause" are reviewed de novo but "a reviewing court should take care both to review findings of historical fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers"). "The defendant has the burden to show that the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion, when the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was reversible error." Murphy, 264 Va. at 573, 570 S.E.2d 836.

[4, 5] The Fourth Amendment 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. "Although the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained, [the Supreme] Court has inferred that a warrant must generally be secured." Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 1856, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011). Although warrantless searches are " ‘presumptively unreasonable,’ " that "presumption may be overcome in some circumstances because ‘the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is "reasonableness." ’ " Id. (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 1947, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006)). "Reasonableness, in turn, is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances." Commonwealth v. Campbell, 294 Va. 486, 494, 807 S.E.2d 735 (2017) (quoting Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 421, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996)). "Accordingly, the warrant requirement is subject to certain reasonable exceptions." King, 563 U.S. at 459, 131 S.Ct. at 1856.

₇₀In the trial court and here, the parties have argued for and against two exceptions: the emergency-aid exception and the community-caretaker exception. Roberts maintains that neither exception applies. The Commonwealth responds that Shetler’s warrantless entry was proper under either exception. But the Commonwealth was reluctant at oral argument to say which doctrine provided the better basis for decision. We first explain why the emergency-aid exception provides the best and narrowest ground. We then show why Shetler’s warrantless entry was proper under that exception.

A. We apply the emergency-aid exception, not the community-caretaker exception.

[6, 7] As the Supreme Court explained in King, a "well-recognized exception [to the warrant requirement] applies when ‘ "the exigencies of the situation" make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’ " 563 U.S. at 460, 131 S.Ct. at 1856 (second alteration in original) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 394, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2414, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)). King "identified several...