HOWARD (VINCENT TODD) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: MAY 13, 2011; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-002399-MR
VINCENT TODD HOWARD
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE KIMBERLY N. BUNNELL, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 09-CR-01006
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, COMBS, AND WINE, JUDGES.
CLAYTON, JUDGE: This is an appeal of the denial of a motion to suppress. We
affirm the decision of the trial court.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On May 14, 2009, Detective Albert Dixon of the Lexington Police
Department searched the home of the Appellant, Vincent Todd Howard, pursuant
to a search warrant that had been issued on May 12, 2009. Howard was arrested
after 2.2 pounds of marijuana, hydrocodone pills and drug paraphernalia were
seized from his residence. Howard was charged with trafficking in marijuana,
possession of a controlled substance II, and use/possession of drug paraphernalia.
Howard filed a motion to suppress with the trial court, arguing that the
search warrant Detective Dixon used was not supported by probable cause. After a
suppression hearing, the trial court overruled his motion to suppress and Howard
entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of trafficking in marijuana, eight
ounces to less than five pounds. He was sentenced to one year in prison, to be
served concurrently with a federal term he is serving.
Howard filed this appeal, arguing that the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution
require suppression of all evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the
search warrant because the affidavit for the search warrant contained insufficient
facts to establish probable cause and that the “good faith exception” was
inapplicable.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we must uphold
the trial court’s findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. See Talbott
v. Com., 968 S.W.2d 76 (Ky. 1998); Canler v. Com., 870 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Ky.
1994), (citing Harper v. Com., 694 S.W.2d 665 (Ky. 1985). Substantial evidence
is “evidence of substance and relevant consequence, having the fitness to induce
conviction in the minds of reasonable men.” Kentucky State Racing Comm’n v.
-2-
Fuller, 481 S.W.2d 298, 308 (Ky. 1972) (quoting O’Nan v. Ecklar Moore Express,
Inc., 339 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Ky. 1960). A trial court’s findings of fact must be
upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 193,
93 S. Ct. 375, 379, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1972); Roark v. Com., 90 S.W.3d 24, 37 (Ky.
2002). We review de novo the trial court’s application of law to the facts. See
Com. v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002). With these standards in mind,
we review the trial court’s decision.
DISCUSSION
The trial court found that the following supported the probable cause aspect
of the warrant:
Detective Dixon testified consistently with the
information contained in the affidavit. He stated that on
December 18, 2008, he received information from his
supervisor that a confidential source reported that the
Defendant was selling cocaine. The detective searched
the narcotics computer data base and found that
previously, on February 2, 2008, and August 29, 2008,
the narcotics unit received information from confidential
sources who reported that the Defendant was selling
cocaine.
On April 2, 2009, Detective Dixon received
information from a confidential source that the Defendant
was keeping unusual work hours. The detective verified
the Defendant’s address and searched for his prior
criminal history. Based upon all of the information that
Detective Dixon had gathered, he decided to do a trash
pull. On May 5, 2009, Detective Dixon and Detective
Lewis went to the Defendant’s residence and located
trash set out at the end of the driveway. They removed
one bag from the large green container and three bags on
the ground. Upon examining the contents, they
-3-
discovered suspected marijuana and mail matter with the
name of the defendant and Latrice Campbell.
They performed another trash pull on May 11,
2009. Once again they located trash set out at the end of
the driveway. They removed four bags from the large
green container. Upon examining the contents, they
discovered suspected whole marijuana leaves and mail
matter with the name of the Defendant and Latrice
Campbell.
Detective Dixon included all of this information in
an affidavit and presented it to Judge Joe Bouvier who
issued a search warrant on May 12, 2009.
The Defendant argues that there was no probable
cause for the warrant to be issued. He correctly points
out that mere allegations that the Defendant was dealing
drugs are insufficient to establish probable cause. The
Defendant is also correct in the reliability of the “tips”
was questionable since the police were using information
from an undisclosed confidential source. If Detective
Dixon had stopped his investigation at this point, there
clearly would not have been probable cause for a search
warrant to be issued. However, Detective Dixon
attempted to corroborate this information by conducting
two trash pulls.
On two different occasions Detective Dixon
located what he believed to be suspected marijuana. The
Defendant argues that the officer’s failure to test the
substances prior to presenting the information in the
affidavit is fatal to the search warrant. While the
Defendant presented a line of federal cases which
addressed the concern of testing suspected drug evidence,
this Court does not find them to be controlling nor
directly on point.
There is no requirement in Kentucky that officers
test suspected drug evidence prior to obtaining a search
warrant. This would seem to especially hold true for
marijuana since it can not be field tested. If officers were
required to wait for weeks for those test results, then
-4-
there could be an argument that the information was
stale. There would also be concern that the drugs had
been moved during such a delay.
There was no evidence to support that Detective
Dixon lacked the training and experience to have an
educated opinion about whether the substances he located
were in fact marijuana. While this court was not
presented the evidence to observe, the court
acknowledged that Detective Dixon was much better
suited to form the opinion of whether the substance was
marijuana instead of the court making that determination.
Order dated October 22, 2009.
Howard argues on appeal that the search warrant affidavit that was
submitted by the police to obtain the warrant did not set forth facts giving rise to
probable cause. While Howard argues that Epps v. Com., 295 S.W.3d 807, 809
(Ky. 2009), sets forth the applicable standard of review, the Commonwealth
contends that Epps applies to warrantless searches rather than those pursuant to a
warrant. We agree. We find the case of Com. v. Pride, 302 S.W.3d 43 (Ky. 2010),
to be more on point.
In Pride, the Kentucky Supreme Court specifically found that a
warrantless search standard of review was not applicable in searches conducted
pursuant to a warrant. The Court looked to the case of Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S.
213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983), for the controlling standard, which
provides:
The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a
practical, common-sense decision whether, given all
the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him,
including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of
-5-
persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be
found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing
court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a
“substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]” that probable
cause existed.
Id. at 238-39, 103 S. Ct. at 2332 (internal citations omitted).
A warrant should be granted based upon facts given under oath,
establishing probable cause, and “particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.” Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84,
107 S. Ct. 1013, 1016, 94 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1987). Based upon the totality of the
circumstances, the trial court found there was sufficient probable cause for the
issuance of the search warrant.
Howard argues that the tips set forth in the affidavit were vague, did not set
forth with specificity who had given them, and that they were found on a police
computer. There was also a tip that Howard worked unusual hours. As set forth
above, the trial court acknowledged that these tips alone would not be sufficient
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant.
The trial court opined that the evidence found in the trash cans located on
Howard’s property, when added to the anonymous tips, gave the issuing court
probable cause to issue the search warrant. Howard, however, argues that there
was no evidence within the four corners of the document to indicate Detective
Dixon was familiar with what marijuana looked like. Also, Howard contends that
-6-
tests on the suspected marijuana should have been conducted to make sure that it
was, in fact, marijuana.
Howard relies on the unpublished case of U. S. v. Mosley, 2008 WL
1868012 (E.D.Ky. 2008)(08-22-KKC), in support of his argument that Detective
Dixon should have tested the suspected marijuana found in the trash cans. In
Mosley, however, there was a three-month delay between the time the trash pull
occurred and the issuance of the search warrant. Here, however, this was not the
case. The trash pulls were on May 5 and May 11, 2009. The warrant was issued
on May 12, 2009. It is important to note that there has been no indication through
testing that the substance Detective Dixon found in the trash cans was not
marijuana. Given his training as a police officer, we find he had the necessary
expertise to determine the substance was marijuana.
We find the trial court correctly concluded that, under the totality of the
circumstances, there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.
Thus, we affirm the decision.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Brandon Neil Jewell
Assistant Public Advocate
Frankfort, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
David W. Barr
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-7-
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.