State v. Ybarra

637 S.W.3d 644

STATE of Missouri, Appellant,

v.Caden N. YBARRA, Respondent.

No. ED 109736

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: November 23, 2021

Timothy A. Lohmar, Kaitlin N. Aubuchon, Co-Counsel, 300 North Second Street, # 601, St. Charles, Mo. 63301, Daniel N. McPherson, Co-Counsel, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Mo. 65102, for appellant.

Kenneth R. Schwartz, 7751 Carondelet Ave, Suite 204, St. Louis, Mo. 63105, for respondent.

Angela T. Quigless, P.J.

The State of Missouri brings this interlocutory appeal after the Circuit Court of St. Charles County sustained, in part, the motion of Defendant, Caden N. Ybarra, to suppress statements he made and physical evidence revealed during and after a traffic stop. We reverse in part and affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.

We reverse the trial court's suppression of Defendant's statements made during the traffic stop because Defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation during the traffic stop, so Miranda warnings were not necessary.¹ Likewise, we reverse the trial court's suppression of the evidence of cocaine Defendant voluntarily revealed during the traffic stop because we find no violation of Defendant's Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights, in that Defendant was not unlawfully seized or in custody.

We affirm the trial court's suppression of Defendant's pre- Miranda statements made at the hotel after the traffic stop because Defendant at that point was subjected to custodial interrogation, and thus entitled to Miranda warnings.

Factual and Procedural Background

Following a traffic stop, the State charged Defendant with three felony counts of possession of a controlled substance and one misdemeanor count of possession of marijuana. Defendant filed motions to suppress incriminating statements he made during and after the traffic stop along with the cocaine he revealed to police during the stop.

When reviewing a trial court's order suppressing evidence, we view the facts and the reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. State v. Selvy , 462 S.W.3d 756, 760 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). In the early morning of July 31, 2019, Defendant was one of two passengers in a car driven by John Andrew, which was traveling west on Interstate 70 in St. Charles County, Missouri. At approximately 1:29 a.m., Missouri Highway Patrol Trooper Brodie Waaso observed the car driving 89 miles per hour in a 60-miles-per-hour zone, "bouncing back and forth" between lanes, and following another vehicle too closely. Trooper Waaso pursued the car, and pulled it over at 1:31 a.m. Andrew was in the driver's seat, Defendant was in the front passenger seat, and a third man was in the back driver's-side seat. Trooper Waaso approached the car and smelled a moderate odor of alcohol on the driver's breath and saw a small amount of what he believed to be "marijuana shake" on the vehicle's center console. Trooper Waaso asked the driver to exit the car, and detained the driver in the patrol car to begin a DWI investigation. Defendant and the other passenger remained in the car.

In the patrol car, Trooper Waaso inquired about the driver's alcohol and marijuana consumption. After learning that Trooper Waaso would search the car, the driver admitted there was "some" marijuana and cocaine in the car although he did not know where. Trooper Waaso conducted a preliminary breath test followed by field sobriety tests of the driver, which the driver failed. Meanwhile, Officer Mutz with the St. Peters Police Department arrived to assist Trooper Waaso. Officer Mutz remained near the car where Defendant and the other passenger remained seated. Trooper Waaso arrested the driver for DWI, handcuffed him, read him the Missouri Implied Consent Law and Miranda warnings, and secured him in the patrol car.

After his arrest and post- Miranda while restrained in the patrol vehicle, the driver again admitted there was cocaine and marijuana in the car. The driver stated his passengers may have tried to hide the drugs. Based on these statements, Trooper Waaso approached the car to confront both passengers about the drugs, and testified his investigation had shifted focus from a DWI investigation to a drug investigation. At 1:58 a.m., Trooper Waaso asked Defendant and the other passenger to step out of the car, and patted them down for safety. Trooper Waaso did not give the men Miranda warnings. Trooper Waaso testified he advised both men of the driver's statement, told them he knew there were drugs in the car, and asked about their location. In response, Defendant told Trooper Waaso he had cocaine in a sock, and Defendant pulled a baggie filled with a white powdery substance from his sock. Defendant also told Trooper Waaso there was marijuana located under the passenger seat.

After retrieving the white powdery substance, Trooper Waaso instructed Defendant and the other passenger to remain with Officer Mutz while Trooper Waaso searched the passenger compartment of the car. The two passengers were further detained, but not handcuffed or physically restrained. Trooper Waaso found and seized the marijuana under the passenger seat, and also found marijuana in the storage pocket behind the driver's seat. Trooper Waaso's dashcam video shows the detention of both passengers and the search of the car. Thereafter, Trooper Waaso walked back to his patrol car, at which time the driver stated the drugs were his idea, stated the drugs were all his, and asked Trooper Waaso not to charge his friends.

Trooper Waaso then called for a tow truck. Trooper Waaso did not arrest Defendant. Instead, Trooper Waaso instructed Officer Mutz to drive Defendant and the other passenger to a hotel because they were from out-of-state and needed a place to stay since their driver had been arrested. Officer Mutz transported Defendant and the other passenger from the scene in the back of his patrol car at 2:23 a.m. to a hotel. Trooper Waaso testified that when the tow truck arrived, he realized he forgot to search the trunk of the car as part of a standard tow inventory search. Trooper Waaso discovered a backpack in the trunk, and inside the backpack, he discovered Defendant's student identification and a baggie containing what appeared to be marijuana residue.

As a result, Trooper Waaso radioed dispatch at 2:26 a.m. with instructions for Officer Mutz not to let Defendant go because Trooper Waaso wanted to question him further about the backpack. Defendant was still detained in the back of Officer Mutz's patrol car when Trooper Waaso arrived at the hotel at 2:43 a.m. Trooper Waaso testified that Defendant was not free to leave. Trooper Waaso confronted Defendant with the backpack, asked if it belonged to him, and asked if the marijuana belonged to him. Trooper Waaso did not advise Defendant of his Miranda rights before confronting him with the backpack and marijuana and questioning him. When Defendant confessed the backpack and marijuana were his, Trooper Waaso arrested and handcuffed him. Trooper Waaso gave Defendant the Miranda warnings post-arrest.

After Defendant was arrested and read his Miranda warnings, Trooper Waaso searched the backpack and found four pills, later identified as clonazepam and oxycodone. Defendant made post-arrest statements that are not at issue in this appeal. The State charged Defendant with four drug-related offenses: Count I, possession of a controlled substance (cocaine); Count II, possession of a controlled substance (clonazepam); Count III, possession of a controlled substance (oxycodone); and Count IV, possession of marijuana. Defendant filed motions to suppress statements and evidence. The trial court held a suppression hearing, and Trooper Waaso testified as the sole witness. The State also entered into evidence Trooper Waaso's dashcam video showing the traffic stop, but not the exchange at the hotel.

The court issued the following order on the motions to suppress:

1. As to defendant's statements at the scene of the traffic stop, Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant was entitled to Miranda warnings. The Trooper was not asking the defendant a moderate number of questions in order to obtain information confirming or dispelling his suspicions. At this point, he already knew that drugs were in the vehicle. Defendant's freedom to leave was dependent upon the police officer because the defendant did not have transportation.

2. Defendant's motion to suppress the cocaine evidence is GRANTED. The cocaine is the fruit of the poisonous tree.

3. Defendant's motion to suppress statements made by the defendant at the hotel is GRANTED. Defendant was entitled to Miranda warnings.

4. Defendant's motion to Suppress [sic] the evidence seized from defendant's backpack is DENIED. Search of defendant's backpack was lawful under the automobile exception and the inventory search exception.

The State appeals the suppression of Defendant's statements during the traffic stop and at the hotel, and the cocaine evidence seized during the traffic stop.

Discussion

In three points on appeal, the State challenges the trial court's suppression of Defendant's statements made during the traffic stop, the cocaine contained in Defendant's sock that he revealed during the traffic stop, and Defendant's statements made at the hotel. The State contends that Defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation that would necessitate Miranda warnings.

Standard of Review

In a motion to suppress, the State bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the trial court should deny the motion. Section 542.296.6 RSMo. (2016);² Selvy , 462 S.W.3d at 764. The State may appeal any order or judgment that results in the suppression of evidence. Section 547.200.1. We will reverse a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress only if it is clearly erroneous. State v. Lindsay , 599 S.W.3d 532, 535 (Mo App. E.D. 2020). The trial court's ruling is clearly erroneous if we are left with a...