Background
Brian Broome entered a conditional Alford plea to drug, trespass, paraphernalia, and firearm offenses, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The charges arose after an anonymous caller reported someone trespassing in Apartment 109 at the Goodwater Falls complex. The property manager told responding Officer Justin Phipps that the apartment was vacant and no one was authorized to be there.
Broome’s mother had previously leased Apartment 109, but her lease expired approximately six weeks before the search and she had moved to Apartment 108. Officer Phipps entered Apartment 109 after knocking and announcing his presence, observed drug paraphernalia, and arrested Broome and another person for trespassing. A search yielded methamphetamine, suspected fentanyl, pills, scales, cash, and a handgun. The circuit court concluded that Broome was a trespasser with no reasonable expectation of privacy and denied suppression.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that substantial evidence supported the circuit court’s factual findings, despite the court’s mistaken description of the property manager’s recorded interview as “testimony.” Hearsay is generally permissible at suppression hearings, and the Confrontation Clause does not apply there, so the mischaracterization was harmless.
The court further held that Broome failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in Apartment 109. The prior lease had expired, Broome was not named on either his mother’s former or current lease, and he offered no evidence that he paid bills or possessed a key. His statement that he was merely retrieving belongings did not establish a privacy interest. Because the unit was unleased, the property manager also had authority to consent to the search.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant must establish his own objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched to challenge a search under the Fourth Amendment.
- Merely keeping belongings in or visiting a former tenant’s apartment does not establish a legitimate expectation of privacy without evidence of lawful occupancy, unrestricted access, or another possessory interest.
- Hearsay may generally be considered at a suppression hearing, where the Confrontation Clause does not apply.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of contesting a search of premises after the governing lease has expired. Even if another person arguably retained some limited right to finish moving belongings, that interest does not automatically confer Fourth Amendment protection on a defendant who cannot show his own lawful or possessory connection to the premises.
The unpublished opinion also confirms that a trial court’s imprecise description of admissible suppression-hearing evidence will not warrant reversal when substantial evidence otherwise supports its findings and the mistake does not affect the suppression analysis.