State v. Bistrika

Evidence of independent crimes that threaten the safety of police officers do not need to be suppressed even if evidence is obtained as a result of unlawful police conduct.

Defendant appealed her conviction of interfering with a peace officer, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct in the second degree. Deputies were called to Defendant's home and, once the emergency had dissipated, the deputies were told to leave the property. The deputies did not leave. Defendant became combative and a deputy tried to place her under arrest. Defendant slipped away and stood with her family members who shouted at the deputies. The deputies began to fear for their safety and called back-up to assist them in the arrest. Defendant appeals, alleging the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained after deputies were asked to leave the property. The Court held that “evidence of independent crimes that threaten officer safety need not be suppressed even when the evidence was obtained as a result of unlawful police conduct.” Defendant alleged, and the Court holds, that the trial court erred in giving jury instructions regarding police officer authorization to perform a community caretaking function and that these instructions “inserted an irrelevant issue into jury's deliberation that permitted the jury to reach a legally erroneous result.” Convictions on counts one and three were reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.