Young, Martin

A 9-1-1 caller reported seeing a driver asleep at a traffic light. A responding officer located the suspect vehicle parked at a business near the traffic light and parked his patrol car partially behind it. The driver (later identified as Young) had his driver’s side door open. The officer approached Young as he sat in the driver’s seat and asked how Young was doing and if he was sleepy. Young said he was okay but just didn’t want to drive right then. The officer determined that Young was not in distress. The officer asked Young to do him a favor and exit the vehicle to speak with him. When Young got out, the officer smelled alcohol and began a DWI investigation that ultimately led to his arrest for DWI.

Young filed a motion to suppress, challenging the officer’s request that he exit his vehicle. More specifically, Young argued that (1) his interaction with the officer constituted a seizure, not a consensual encounter, and (2) the community caretaking exception didn’t apply. The State argued it was mostly relying on the interaction being a consensual encounter. The trial court ruled: (1) the initial conversation constituted a seizure, and (2) the seizure was initially justified under community caretaking but then ceased to be so once the officer determined Young was not in distress. The trial court suppressed all the evidence after that point.

The State appealed on the sole ground that the officer’s conduct before smelling the alcohol could be justified as a consensual encounter. Instead of deciding the State’s issue, the court of appeals held that the State failed to challenge all independent grounds supporting the trial court’s ruling by failing to argue the community caretaking exception, thus mandating an affirmance.

The State argues that because community caretaking and consensual encounter were independent reasons against the trial court’s ruling, it could abandon one without forfeiting its right to review on appeal.