Yopp v. Commonwealth
562 S.W.3d 290
Ky. Ct. App.2018Background
- Task Force received notice of three suspicious USPS packages; two recipients identified Yopp as the final destination after being shown his Facebook photo.
- Detective Turner saw a black Chevy (matching Yopp’s Facebook photo) near the third address where a package sat in plain sight and confirmed the truck’s registration to Yopp.
- KSP Officer Payne stopped Yopp’s truck; Yopp consented to a vehicle search, disclosed a pistol, and a K-9 alerted; officers found a pistol and marijuana residue.
- After Miranda warnings, Yopp consented to a search of his residence and cell phone; searches uncovered drugs, drug paraphernalia, guns, cash, and incriminating texts.
- Yopp pleaded guilty under a conditional plea reserving appeal of the denial of his suppression motion; the circuit court denied suppression and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Yopp's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion | Stop was unlawful—Turner had insufficient facts to detain the truck | Totality (package recipient IDs, Facebook truck match, observed truck, plate check) gave reasonable suspicion | Stop was supported; investigatory stop lawful |
| Whether consent to search vehicle, residence, and phone was voluntary | Consent was coerced or tainted by an unlawful stop/search | Consent was knowing and voluntary (Miranda given; signed consent forms; no coercion shown) | Consent voluntary; searches lawful |
| Whether Yopp was subjected to custodial interrogation (Miranda) | Removal from truck and subsequent questioning were custodial and required warnings | Not custodial; Yopp was not deprived of freedom in a significant way and was Mirandized multiple times | No custodial interrogation; Miranda warnings sufficient |
| Whether pre-Miranda statements were used to prosecute | Pre-Miranda statements should be suppressed if used | Any pre-Miranda statements were not coerced and did not produce the evidence obtained via voluntary consent | No reversible error; record shows no prejudicial use requiring remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore v. Commonwealth, 119 S.W.3d 532 (Ky. App. 2003) (standard for reviewing reasonable-suspicion/probable-cause issues and totality-of-circumstances approach)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (adopted approach: factual findings reviewed for clear error; reasonable-suspicion/probable-cause reviewed de novo)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (stop-and-frisk standard: specific, articulable facts and rational inferences justify brief investigative stops)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirement to advise suspects of Fifth Amendment rights before custodial interrogation)
- Bauder v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 588 (Ky. 2009) (example that noncriminal driving behavior can contribute to reasonable suspicion when viewed with other facts)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent to search determined from totality of circumstances)
- Hampton v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2007) (deferential review of trial court’s factual findings on voluntariness; Schneckloth framework)
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2003) (appellate standard: factual findings conclusive if supported by substantial evidence)