Barney Brewer v.Commonwealth – 2012-CA-001312 –
Rendered 6/21/13 - Not to be published
This case was affirmed in part,
reversed in part and remanded to the Wolfe Circuit Court after the panel of the
KY Court of Appeals determined that substantial evidence did not support the
trial court’s finding that either hot pursuit, fear of destruction of evidence,
or personal safety justified officers’ warrantless entry into a home.
The KSP
had received a tip that the manufacture of methamphetamine was occurring at Mr.
Brewer’s home. Several hours later, after gathering units from surrounding
counties, the officers decided to conduct a “knock and talk.” When the Troopers
saw Appellant run out of the back of the house, officers entered the property
and apprehended him. Once in the backyard, an odor was detected. Troopers
entered the home without a warrant. At the suppression hearing, the officers
had testified that they conducted a “person search” of the home “for officer
safety.” The trial court initially found that “hot pursuit” and “destruction of
evidence” exceptions to the warrant requirement applied, and then further the
“emergency exigent circumstances doctrine” due to the “explosive” nature of
meth manufacturing. The Court of Appeals held that Brewer’s decision to flee
gave rise to circumstances which justified the officers’ entry into the
backyard, but that all three theories of exigency were unsupported by the
record. The Court remanded the suppression issue to the trial court for further
proceedings to determine whether other exigent circumstances were present to
justify the officers’ entry.
Mr. Brewer was represented at trial by Hon.
Miranda Stevens. Molly Mattingly represented Mr. Brewer
on appeal.
Contributed by Karen Maurer
