State v. Youm

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAM DANIEL ABU YOUM, Defendant-Appellant

No. 21-0877

Court of Appeals of Iowa

August 31, 2022

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B Hanson (Motion to Suppress) and Lawrence P. McLellan (Trial) Judges.

A defendant appeals from the denials of his motion to suppress and motion for a new trial. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Greer, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Mullins, S.J ^[*] GREER, Presiding Judge.

Sam Abu Youm was convicted of two counts of possession of a controlled substance (eutylone and fentanyl) with the intent to deliver with a firearm and two counts of failure to possess a tax stamp. See Iowa Code §§ 124.401(1)(c)(8), (c)(9), (e), 453B.3 (2020). In his present appeal, he argues the district court should have granted both his motion to suppress evidence of an unlawful search and his motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence. Because the emergency aid exception allowed for the warrantless entry into and initial search of Abu Youm's apartment and because he presented no alternative course of events for the district court to weigh as more credible, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The Des Moines Police Department received multiple calls about gunshots at an apartment complex soon after midnight on August 11, 2020. When Sergeant Theodore Stroope arrived on the scene, he was directed to a specific apartment by one of the callers. The caller told Sergeant Stroope that he left his apartment when he heard gunfire and went outside to the parking lot, where he heard someone saying "they were just testing it out" and "it didn't need to go that far." The witness also reported seeing a man lying on the porch of the same apartment. Officer Zachary Vander Ploeg arrived on the scene, and both officers walked toward the apartment identified by the witness. On that course, they noticed an automobile with a broken window and glass on the ground. Men were standing on the balcony the officers had been directed to and they began speaking with the officers-one of those men was Abu Youm, who reported he had not heard any gunshots.

Sergeant Stroope and Officer Vander Ploeg then went inside the apartment building and knocked on the apartment's door; S.O. answered, came out into the hallway, and shut the door behind him. When Sergeant Stroope asked to make sure everyone was okay, S.O. asked if he had a warrant. Sergeant Stroope informed S.O. a warrant was unnecessary because they were only checking to make sure no one was hurt. He entered the apartment over S.O.'s objection. At this point, Abu Youm came inside from the balcony and ardently objected to officers entering the apartment. Sergeant Stroope went out onto the balcony and found a spent .45 ACP nickel-plated shell casing on the ground. He told Officer Vander Ploeg to start handcuffing the five individuals in the apartment and called dispatch to request more officers be sent to the apartment. Abu Youm proceeded to lock himself first in a bedroom and then the bathroom; officers were eventually able to get him handcuffed and in the living room with the rest of the apartment's occupants. He told the officers that this was his apartment and renewed his objections to their entry without a warrant. Officers conducted a plain view search to ensure there was no one else present-during this search, they found a rifle on the floor of a bedroom closet. Once Abu Youm was placed in a police vehicle, he changed his story and told officers he did not live in the apartment and had just arrived.

With this information in hand, the officers obtained a search warrant. During the warranted search, they found additional shell casings matching the one on the balcony and consistent with the rifle as well as a second firearm. In the same closet that the rifle was found, officers located three shoe boxes. Among other things, one shoebox contained medication paperwork with Abu Youm's name on it, electronic benefits transfer cards in the names of two of Abu Youm's sisters, and a plastic baggie with ten multi-colored pills that, after testing, were determined to be eutylone; the second shoebox held 228 additional eutylone pills and fifty-two pills determined to be fentanyl; and the third shoebox was filled with $752 and Abu Youm's identification card. Officers determined the closet was in the bedroom Abu Youm slept in, but he shared the closet with S.O.

After this investigation was concluded, Abu Youm faced two sets of charges stemming from the event; the first set involved harassment and weapons charges and the present set concerned drug charges. In both, he moved to suppress evidence, claiming the officers' warrantless entry and subsequent search of the apartment violated his federal and state constitutional rights. By the time this case teed up for hearing on the motion to suppress in March 2021, a similar motion had already been heard and denied in the weapons case (FECR340728).^[1] Rather than present the same witnesses and evidence again, Abu Youm asked the court to incorporate the other case's "motion to suppress, exhibits, resistance, briefs and ruling" in the present case. The district court granted the motion to incorporate^[2] and, as the court had done in FECR340728, ultimately denied Abu Youm's motion to suppress, stating the community caretaker exception allowed for the warrantless entry and search of the apartment.

Abu Youm proceeded to trial for two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and two corresponding counts of failure to possess a tax stamp. At trial, he presented only one witness and that witness testified to the names of Abu Youm's siblings, presumably to explain that not all of the items found in the apartment bearing Abu Youm's last name were his. The jury found him guilty on all counts and specifically found that Abu Youm was in the immediate possession or control of a firearm during the commission of his crimes, triggering a weapon enhancement. See Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(e). After the verdict was entered, Abu Youm made motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, arguing the weight of the evidence was not such that the jury could properly find Abu Youm was in possession-either actual or constructive-of the controlled substances or a weapon. The district court denied both motions and sentenced Abu Youm to a total term of incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years.

II. Analysis.

Abu Youm appeals the denial of both his motion to suppress and his motion for a new trial. Because his motion to suppress was rooted in a violation of his constitutional rights, our review is de novo. State v. Price-Williams, 973 N.W.2d 556, 561 (Iowa 2022). We review a district court's denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. State v. Serrato, 787 N.W.2d 462, 472 (Iowa 2010). A district court abuses its discretion when it is exercised on grounds clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. Smith, 753 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2008).

A. Motion to Suppress.

As a backdrop to this discussion, the district court concluded that the community caretaking exception applied to avoid the warrant requirement, relying upon the analysis of the other trial court in FECR340728 under the need for emergency medical aid prong. See State v. Coffman, 914 N.W.2d 240, 244 (Iowa 2018) ("The community caretaking exception has three branches: '(1) the emergency aid doctrine, (2) the automobile impoundment/inventory doctrine, and (3) the "public servant" exception.'" (citation omitted)). Abu Youm challenges the officers' entry into the apartment, arguing the officers only found evidence of an "emergency" after entering the apartment, which he claims is supported by their lack of haste getting to any potential injured person. We disagree and find that based upon the information available to the officers a reasonable person would find their actions appropriate. See id. at 251-53.

In reaching this result we consider that both our federal and Iowa constitutions protect persons from unlawful searches and seizures. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Iowa Const. art. I, § 8. While Iowa's supreme court "jealously guard[s] [the] right to construe a provision of our state constitution differently than its federal counterpart, though the two provisions may contain nearly identical language and have the same general scope, import, and purpose," "[w]e generally 'interpret the scope and purpose of the Iowa Constitution's search and seizure provisions to track with federal interpretations of the Fourth Amendment' because of their nearly identical language." State v. Brown, 930 N.W.2d 840, 847 (Iowa 2019) (citations omitted). Historically, our supreme court has "use[d] the federal substantive standard of community caretaking" while "reserv[ing] the right to apply that standard in a more stringent fashion than federal precedents." State v. Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149, 172 (Iowa 2013).

We pause to note that the United State Supreme Court recently clarified- and reined in the use of-the community caretaker exception in Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S.Ct. 1596 1599-600 (2021). In that case, police officers were called to the petitioner's home by his wife for a welfare check because she could not get ahold of him after he expressed suicidal ideations involving his gun the night before. Caniglia, 141 S.Ct. at 1598. Officers arrived at the home with the wife and found the petitioner, who agreed with his wife's explanation of what happened but denied contemplating self-harm. Id. Officers called an ambulance...