Parker v. Commonwealth
440 S.W.3d 381
Ky.2014Background
- On Jan. 12, 2009 Officer Reccius stopped Robert Mason Parker after observing him cross the center line; Parker’s license was suspended. Parker exited the vehicle and stood at the rear while officers searched the car without handcuffing him. The search produced a loaded handgun and marijuana. Parker was arrested and indicted on firearms, drug, and vehicle charges.
- Parker moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court granted the suppression on March 19, 2010. The Commonwealth filed a CR 59.05 motion to alter or, alternatively, requested additional findings under RCr 9.78; the trial court denied relief on May 27, 2010.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the suppression order, holding the Commonwealth’s appeal timely (the CR 59.05/CR 52.02 tolling issue) and that the exclusionary rule did not require suppression because officers relied on existing precedent.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court addressed two main issues: (1) whether the Commonwealth’s appeal was timely given the interlocutory suppression order and the post-judgment motions filed; and (2) whether the exclusionary rule required suppression of evidence seized in a Belton-style vehicle search later invalidated by Arizona v. Gant.
- The Court held the Commonwealth’s notice of appeal was timely because the Commonwealth’s motion for additional findings (filed under RCr 9.78 but treated as CR 52.02) tolled the appeal period. On the merits, the Court applied a narrow Davis good-faith exception and ruled the search was objectively reasonable under then-binding precedent (Belton and Henry), so suppression was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Parker: suppression order was interlocutory and not reviewable under CR 59.05; CR 59.05 did not toll appeal time, so Commonwealth’s appeal untimely | Commonwealth: alternatively sought additional findings under RCr 9.78 (treated as CR 52.02) which tolled the appeal period; appeal timely | Court: CR 59.05 inappropriate for interlocutory suppression order, but Commonwealth’s motion for findings (treated as CR 52.02) tolled the appeal period; appeal timely |
| Applicability of exclusionary rule after Gant | Parker: evidence must be suppressed because Gant made the Belton search unconstitutional; Griffith makes Gant retroactive | Commonwealth: evidence admissible under good-faith exception because officers relied on clearly established precedent (Belton/Henry) at time of search | Court: applied a narrow Davis rule — evidence admissible where officers reasonably relied on clearly established U.S. Supreme Court or Kentucky precedent (Belton/Henry); suppression not required |
| Scope of Davis good-faith exception in Kentucky | Parker: Kentucky should not extend Davis broadly; may retain broader state exclusionary protections | Commonwealth: follow Davis to avoid penalizing conscientious officers who followed binding precedent | Court: adopted Davis but narrowly limited to objectively reasonable reliance on clearly established precedent from U.S. Supreme Court or this Court; Kentucky follows federal approach here |
| Role of state constitutional tradition (Youman) | Parker: Kentucky tradition supports broader exclusionary rule beyond deterrence | Commonwealth: modern Kentucky precedent aligns with federal deterrence-focused approach | Court: declines broad Youman-based approach; limits exclusionary rule to deterrence rationale consistent with modern precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (permitting vehicle search incident to arrest under the then-prevailing rule)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limiting searches incident to arrest; authorizes search only if arrestee unsecured and within reach or evidence of arrest crime likely in vehicle)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good-faith exception for searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (establishing good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrant reliance)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (new constitutional rules of criminal procedure apply retroactively to cases on direct review)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applied to the states)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (origin of exclusionary rule for federal prosecutions)
- Henry v. Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 194 (Ky. 2008) (Kentucky decision treating Belton as controlling pre-Gant and upholding vehicle search incident to arrest)