SIGLER (STEVEN) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: DECEMBER 10, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-000375-MR
STEVEN SIGLER
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE KAREN LYNN WILSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 08-CR-00309
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, DIXON, AND WINE, JUDGES.
CLAYTON, JUDGE: Steven Sigler appeals the order of the Henderson Circuit
Court denying his motion to suppress evidence gathered pursuant to a search
warrant. He specifically argues that the affidavit in support of the search warrant
was insufficient because the search warrant did not describe the evidence with
sufficient particularity. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the trial
court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 18, 2008, the Henderson County Grand Jury indicted
Sigler on charges of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia, fleeing or evading police in the second degree,
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, and persistent felony offender.
Following his indictment, Sigler asserted that the affidavit supporting
the search warrant lacked probable cause and specificity as to what was expected
to be found during the search. A suppression hearing was held on December 30,
2008. At the suppression hearing, Deputy Jay Workins of the Henderson County
Sheriff’s Office testified for the Commonwealth. He recounted that on October 13,
2008, he was driving his marked cruiser to his home around 7:30 p.m. on Highway
1078. At the intersection of 1078 and Baskett Ridge Road, he saw a car swerve
and drive into a ditch. After witnessing the near accident, Workins followed the
car. Although it was dark, he did not turn on his siren or lights.
Sigler, the driver of the car, pulled into an apartment complex with
Workins right behind him. Then, Sigler got out of the car with a black safe in his
hands. Workins identified himself as a police officer and told Sigler to stop.
Rather than stop, Sigler ran toward an apartment, entered it, and tried to lock the
screen door. Next, Sigler, all the while holding the black safe, ran through the
apartment to the back door and attempted to unlock the back door. Workins
-2-
pursued him through the apartment. When Workins took out his taser, Sigler
surrendered. When Workins interviewed the residents in the apartment, they
claimed that they did not know Sigler.
Workins then placed Sigler in the police cruiser and read him his
Miranda rights. According to Workins’ testimony, Sigler was very nervous,
sweating, rolling his eyes, grinding his teeth, and biting his lips. From his training,
Workins recognized these symptoms as being related to drug use. In fact, Sigler
informed Workins that he had been awake for several days on methamphetamine.
Workins arrested Sigler for DUI. When he questioned Sigler about the safe, Sigler
said it was not his safe. But, located on a key chain in Sigler’s pocket was the key
to the safe. Subsequently, Workins filled out an affidavit for a warrant to search
the safe, which was granted. Upon opening the safe, Sigler discovered
methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Subsequently, Sigler had been
indicted.
Following Workins’ testimony and at the end of the suppression
hearing, the court denied the motion to suppress from the bench. On January 5,
2009, it also entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order overruling
the motion to suppress. The court concluded that the affidavit was sufficient to
support a finding of probable cause and that the warrant was not fatally deficient
for failure to describe the item to be seized with sufficient particularity. The court
noted that because Workins did not know what the locked safe contained, he listed
multiple possibilities for its contents. It held that the warrant was valid based on
-3-
Workins’ observations and the totality of circumstances. The final judgment was
entered on February 20, 2009. Sigler entered a conditional guilty plea in
Henderson Circuit Court to illegal possession of a controlled substance in the first
degree, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (subsequent offender), fleeing or
evading in the second degree, operating a motor vehicle under the influence, and
persistent felony offender in the second degree. Sigler was sentenced to seven
years’ imprisonment. At that time, he reserved the right to appeal the suppression
issue. This appeal follows.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In Kentucky for cases involving suppression, we use the standard of
review set out by the United States Supreme Court in Ornelas v. U. S., 517 U.S.
690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). Under that approach, the decision
of the circuit court on a motion to suppress, which is based on an alleged illegal
search, is subject to a two-part analysis. First, factual findings of the court
concerning historical facts are conclusive if they are not clearly erroneous and are
supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 699. See also Com. v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d
920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002). Second, because the ultimate issue of the existence of
reasonable suspicion or probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact, it is
subject to de novo review. Id. See also Adcock v. Com., 967 S.W.2d 6, 8 (Ky.
1998). In conducting the analysis, the reviewing court must give due weight to
inferences drawn from the facts by the trial court and law enforcement officers and
-4-
to the circuit court’s findings on the officers’ credibility. Id. Using this standard
of review, we will now address the issue before us.
ANALYSIS
Sigler contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to
suppress evidence seized from the safe because the officer’s affidavit for the search
warrant did not describe the evidence with sufficient particularity. He does not
contest the trial court’s factual findings but seeks a de novo review of its
conclusion that Workins’ search warrant affidavit showed probable cause and was
not facially deficient because the evidence was not described with sufficient
particularity. The Commonwealth counters that the trial court correctly denied the
motion to suppress because an examination of relevant law shows that Sigler’s
position is incorrect. The trial court found that the affidavit was sufficient because
it made clear that it was based on Workins’ own observations and, based on the
totality of the circumstances, he had reason to believe that evidence of crime would
be found inside the safe.
We start by acknowledging that under the relevant law, citizens are
protected by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section Ten of
the Kentucky Constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures. Moreover,
Kentucky courts interpret Section Ten of the Kentucky Constitution as consonant
with the Fourth Amendment and, thus, it provides the same scope of protections as
its federal counterpart. See Crayton v. Com., 846 S.W.2d 684 (Ky. 1992).
-5-
Initially, a valid search warrant must be supported by probable cause.
As stated in Com. v. Smith, 898 S.W.2d 496, 503 & n. 2 (Ky. App. 1995), to
determine probable cause for a search:
Magistrates and judges must examine the “totality of the
circumstances” set forth in the affidavit to determine
whether “there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317,
2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 548 (1983) (adopted for purposes
of Kentucky Constitution in Beemer v. Commonwealth,
Ky., 665 S.W.2d 912, 914 (1984)). . . The standard of
review for the issuance of a search warrant requires
reviewing courts to examine whether the issuing judge
had a substantial basis for concluding that the affidavit in
support of the warrant established probable cause.
Gates, supra, 426 U.S. at 238-239, 103 S.Ct. at 2332;
Beemer, supra, 665 S.W.2d at 915.
However, it has been held that a magistrate’s ruling on probable cause should be
afforded great deference by reviewing courts. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S.Ct. at
2331. In the case at hand, we have no difficulty with the trial court deciding, given
the circumstances described by Deputy Workins, that probable cause existed to
issue a search warrant to examine the contents of the safe.
A valid search warrant must also describe with particularity the things
to be seized. “Items to be seized under a legally executed search warrant must be
described ‘particularly’ or ‘as nearly as may be’ under the respective provisions of
the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and § 10 of the Kentucky
Constitution.” Wilson v. Com., 621 S.W.2d 894, 895 (Ky. 1981). The rationale
behind the particularity requirement is to minimize the “unlimited discretion in the
-6-
executing officer’s determination of what is subject to seizure and [the] danger that
items will be seized when the warrant refers to other items.” U. S. v. Ables, 167
F.3d 1021, 1033 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1027, 119 S.Ct. 2378, 144
L.Ed.2d 781 (1999) (quoting U. S. v. Savoca, 761 F.2d 292, 298-99 (6th Cir.
1985)). But, as stated in U. S. v. Henson, 848 F.2d 1374, 1383 (6th Cir. 1988),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1005, 109 S.Ct. 784, 102 L.Ed.2d 776 (1989), “the degree of
specificity required is flexible and will vary depending on the crime involved and
the types of items sought.” Furthermore, in U. S. v. Blum, 753 F.2d 999, 1001
(11th Cir. 1985), it is explained that “[t]hus a description is valid if it is as specific
as the circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation permit.”
Given these parameters, did the trial court appropriately conclude that Sigler’s
search warrant had a sufficient particularity?
An examination of the facts shows that Deputy Workins in his
affidavit for a search warrant of the safe recited the following facts to establish
probable cause and the necessity to search the safe: the individual’s near accident;
the individual’s running after the officer identified himself as a police officer and
asked the individual to stop; the individual’s entry into someone else’s residence
holding the black case (the search warrant refers to the safe as a case); the
individual’s stopping only after the officer showed his taser; individual continued
to be in possession of the locked black case; individual’s stating that the safe was
not his even though the key was in the individual’s pocket on his key ring;
individual’s behavior indicated he was under the influence of drugs since he was
-7-
profusely sweating, grinding teeth, and his speech was slurred; and individual’s
refusal to open the case.
Besides describing the suspicious circumstances, Workins also listed
on the affidavit that the evidence he was seeking inside the safe was:
1. Stolen or embezzled property;
2. Property or things used as the means of committing a
crime;
3. Property or things in the possession of a person who
intends to use it as a means of committing a crime;
4. Property or things in the possession of a person to
whom it was delivered for the purposes of concealing
it or preventing its discovery and which is intended as
a means of committing a crime;
5. Property or things consisting of evidence which tends
to show that a crime has been committed or that a
particular person has committed a crime.
Workins’ enumeration of potential items to be found in the safe and the totality of
the circumstances are sufficient to demonstrate that the affidavit was written with
adequate particularity. It is reasonable, under these facts, to believe that the safe
was either stolen property or contained stolen property. We disagree with Sigler’s
logic that, because the affidavit did not specify methamphetamine or drug
paraphernalia, the affidavit is not specific enough. His suggestion is that whenever
a locked compartment or inaccessible item requires a search warrant that, prior to
opening it, any and all potential items must be described on an affidavit. In such a
scenario, it would be necessary for the applicant to list every possible drug or
weapon or criminal item. Obviously, this is not possible.
-8-
Sigler’s reliance on Crum v. Com., 223 S.W.3d 109 (Ky. 2007), is
misplaced. In Crum, the thing to be seized is described only as “illegal
contraband,” the informant is not named, and the officer’s reason for believing in
the informant’s reliability is not stated. Additionally, the search in Crum involved
the entire house as opposed to a locked safe. Indeed, the search warrant issued in
Crum was basically for a fishing expedition in someone’s home without any
indicia of probable cause. Here, the totality of the circumstances provides criminal
behavior, behavior indicative of drug use, and one locked item. When the suspect
refused permission to open the safe, the search warrant prepared by Deputy
Workins was based on probable cause and contained sufficient particularity.
The Henderson Circuit Court’s judgment is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Steven J. Buck
Assistant Public Advocate
Frankfort, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
Ken W. Riggs
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-9-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.