427 S.W.3d 802
Ky.2014Background
- Deputy Woosley sought to serve an arrest warrant on John Minks at William Minks’s trailer and detected marijuana odor inside.
- John Minks claimed the marijuana; William Minks refused consent to search the residence, prompting the deputy to seek a warrant.
- Judge Bruce Butler signed the warrant and later presided over the suppression hearing addressing the warrant’s validity.
- The search uncovered a box with meth-cooking equipment and two bags of meth in a pillow case at Minks’s trailer on the property behind the business.
- Minks challenged the suppression ruling and recusal issue, arguing due process concerns and insufficiency of the affidavit, but the circuit court denied relief.
- Appellate court affirmed, upholding the denial of suppression, the sufficiency of probable cause, and rejecting automatic recusal as required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge should have recused himself | Minks argues the judge had to recuse due to potential partiality. | Butler properly refused recusal; no bias or personal knowledge shown. | No automatic recusal; due process not violated; discretion to deny recusal affirmed. |
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause for the search | Minks contends informant reliability not attested and evidence insufficient for meth production. | Affidavit, viewed with totality of circumstances, showed probable cause to search for illegal drugs. | Probable cause established; search warrant valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beemer v. Commonwealth, 665 S.W.2d 912 (Ky. 1984) (adopts Gates totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause not require per-statement; totality-of-circumstances)
- Pride v. Commonwealth, 302 S.W.3d 43 (Ky. 2010) (totality-of-the-circumstances review for suppression rulings)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (recusal standards and due-process considerations)
- Hirning v. Dooley, 679 N.W.2d 771 (S.D. 2004) (recusal considerations in warrant context (influences discussed))
- Webb v. Commonwealth, 904 S.W.2d 226 (Ky. 1995) (bias/impartiality standard for recusal decisions)
- Lovett v. Commonwealth, 103 S.W.3d 72 (Ky. 2003) (informant reliability not dispositive on probable cause)
- Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569 (Ky. 2006) (informant reliability and totality-of-circumstances considerations)