Search
MARCH 2009:CASE OF THE MONTH

Officer Frank Shuler saw defendant’s car stop at a red traffic light, pause for a few seconds, and then proceed through the red light.  The officer effectuated a traffic stop, and when he approached the driver’s side window, he smelled alcohol, and noticed the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and watery.  The officer requested the defendant to perform field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed.

The officer then conducted a preliminary breath test (PBT).  He testified at the preliminary examination that he checked defendant’s mouth before placing him in the back of the patrol car, waited 15 minutes, and then administered the test. 

Officer Shuler further testified that he checked defendant’s mouth, and found it to be empty, but he subsequently admitted that, when he began to read defendant his PBT rights, he noticed that defendant had a little piece of paper in his mouth.  Officer Shuler explained that he did not believe that the paper would compromise the PBT results, and therefore waited only a few minutes after noticing the paper before administering the test.  Defendant’s PBT result was 0.15.

Officer Shuler placed defendant under arrest.  He read defendant his chemical test rights, and asked for a blood sample.  Defendant initially consented, and then refused.  Officer Shuler then proceeded to secure a search warrant.  On the form, he indicated that defendant “conducted field sobriety test poorly.”  The officer did not disclose in his affidavit that the defendant had paper in his mouth less than 15 minutes before he conducted the PBT. 

Based on the affidavit, the magistrate issued a search warrant for a blood sample.  The blood test revealed that defendant had a blood alcohol content of 0.11.  Defendant was charged, as a third offender, with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

The Circuit Court found that the officer recklessly omitted information that the defendant had paper in his mouth less than 15 minutes before the administration of the PBT; recklessly stated in the affidavit that Nystagmus was present without informing the magistrate that he had administered the HGN test in a non-standardized way, intentionally or recklessly misrepresented that defendant’s speech was slurred; intentionally or recklessly misrepresented the defendant stopped counting at an appropriate time during the one-legged stand test; and intentionally or recklessly misrepresented that defendant was unable to touch his index fingertips to the tip of his nose.

The circuit court concluded that on the basis of the remaining information in the affidavit, that a strong odor of intoxicants emanated from defendant and that defendant had watery eyes, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause to issue the search warrant, and the BAC evidence should be suppressed.

The Court of Appeals stated that the circuit court did not clearly err when it determined that the officer acted intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth when he omitted this information about the PBT.  However, the Court stated that “the fact that Shuler intentionally or recklessly omitted relevant information does not, by itself, invalidate the warrant.”

The Court concluded that the omission by the Officer of the fact that the defendant had paper in his mouth was not material, because defendant presented insufficient evidence that the presence of paper in his mouth would significantly call into question the accuracy of the PBT result.  The court further concluded that the remaining information in the search warrant, even when the improperly omitted information is removed, is sufficient to form probable cause to issue a search warrant for the defendant’s blood.  “When reviewing a search warrant affidavit, we must read it in a “common sense and realistic manner, not a crabbed or hypertechinal manner.”

The court found that the circuit court erred in determining that a reasonable magistrate would not have found probable cause to issue a redacted search warrant.

The court reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court.

People v. Mullen , case no. 281202, released December 23, 2008.