U.S. v. Crandell

Decision Date07 September 2007
Docket NumberCriminal Action No. 06-232 (JAG).
Citation509 F.Supp.2d 435
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Ronald CRANDELL.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Jenny Kramer, Esq., Phillip Kwon, Esq., Assistant United States Attorneys, Office of the United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for the United States of America.

Lisa M. Mack, Esq., Louise Arkel, Esq., Peter Carter, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Newark, NJ, for Defendant Ronald Crandell.

OPINION

GREENAWAY, JR., District Judge.

This matter comes before this Court on defendant Ronald Crandell's ("Defendant" or "Crandell") motion to suppress evidence recovered in connection with a stop and frisk conducted on July 15, 2005. The question presented is whether an anonymous tip that "a black male with dreadlocks and blonde tips[,] wearing a tan shirt and blue jeans" was carrying a gun in the small of his back is, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk. This Court finds that it is not. The stop and frisk violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The fruits of the stop and frisk, namely a handgun, were tainted by the unconstitutionality of the stop. Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized after the stop shall be granted.

BACKGROUND

This case is about an anonymous tip. Defendant's motion to suppress focuses on an anonymous tip received by officers of the Hoboken Police Department on July 15, 2005, through the dispatch at headquarters. Although the testimony of the officers differed slightly regarding the specific information contained in the anonymous tip, the gist appears in the police report: "a black male with dreadlocks and blonde tips[,] wearing a tan shirt and blue jeans [] in possession of a handgun on his waistband (small of his back)."1

Defendant argues that 1) the anonymous tip lacks any indicia of reliability to supply the requisite reasonable suspicion necessary to effect a Terry stop; 2) the anonymous tip lacks any predictive information that could have been corroborated by the officers; 3) the anonymous tip provides no information from which the police could judge the reliability or veracity of the tip; and 4) the officers lacked any other grounds to stop and search Defendant.

The Government argues that the tip was sufficiently specific to lead the officers to the area and that the tip was corroborated by the officers' previous experience with the Defendant. The Government also argues that a ruling against it creates an unreasonable expectation of police officers in situations similar to the one at hand. The parties fleshed out their arguments during testimony from two officers of the Hoboken Police Department.2

Testimony of Officers Drishti and Valez

Officer Arbend Drishti testified that, on July 15, 2005, he and two other Hoboken police officers were on foot patrol in the Hoboken Housing Authority. (T5:20-23). Officer Drishti described the Housing Authority as approximately twenty buildings located in an area that measures four blocks by two blocks. (T7:12-24). While on patrol, Officer Drishti received a call on his cellular phone from dispatch of an anonymous tip.3 (T6:7-10). Drishti testified that the call described a "male, black male, with dreadlocks with blonde tips, wearing a tan shirt and blue jeans [] with a handgun in the small of his back." (T6:7-10). Officer Drishti received the call while he and Officers Angel Valez and Jimmy Miller were standing at the corner of Fourth Street and Jackson Street. (T8:9). Drishti testified that upon hearing the tip, he thought immediately of the defendant, Ronald "Ricky" Crandell.4 (T7:7-11).

Upon receipt of the tip, Drishti relayed the tip's information to the other two officers, Officers Valez and Miller. (T40:13-24). Officer Valez recalled that the tip stated that "a black male wearing blue jeans and a tan shirt and a towel on his head ... with dreadlocks with gold tips ... had a weapon in his possession."5 (T40:21-24). Officer Valez also testified that he immediately thought of Ricky Crandell upon hearing the tip. (T41:2-5). Valez based this assumption on his knowledge that Defendant had been arrested several times and because Valez had seen Defendant's picture at roll call (on other occasions, not on July 15, 2005). (T41:6-14). Officer Miller did not testify at the hearing.

After receiving the call, the three officers proceeded immediately to the intersection of Fifth and Jackson. (T8:15-16). They chose to proceed to this area because, according to Officer Drishti, "we [knew] Mr. Crandell frequents that area a lot." (T8:19-20). Officer Drishti added, and Officer Valez agreed, that they also chose the area because it is known as a "high-crime area." (T8:19-23 and T41:19-25). The officers searched unsuccessfully for Defendant at this location. (T9:6-8). The officers crossed Jackson and traveled South along Jackson toward Fourth Street. (T9:9-10). Approximately halfway between Fourth Street and Fifth Street, the officers saw Defendant walking toward them. (T9:19-21).

Officer Drishti testified that Crandell was wearing a tan shirt, blue jeans, and that Crandell's hair was in dreadlocks with blond tips. (T11:6-8). Drishti stated that Defendant had a "small [] hand towel" on his head and was carrying a plastic shopping bag in his right hand. (T9:19-25 to T10:1-5). Officer Drishti also testified that "[t]here's not too many people in the project ... that have the dreadlocks with the blond tips." (T10:10-11). Drishti did not include in his police report that Defendant was wearing blue jeans and a tan shirt. (T19:23-25).

Officer Valez testified that Defendant was wearing "loose jeans" and a "tan shirt." (T66:20). Valez testified that he was unsure whether he could see Crandell's dreadlocks beneath the towel. (T51:3-22). When questioned as to whether he could see the gold tips of Defendant's dreadlocks, Officer Valez responded, "I know his face." (T51:8). Officer Valez testified that, prior to stopping Defendant, Valez thought he did not have probable cause to stop him. (T55:5-8). Officer Valez did not provide a direct answer when questioned (three times) as to whether he had a reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop Defendant. (T54:1 to T55:17). Valez further testified that he was uncertain as to the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and that he would have to "look it up." (T55:18-21). Eventually, Valez testified that he "didn't know whether [he] had the legal right" to stop Defendant, which was why he asked for consent for the pat down after stopping Defendant. (T56:15-19).

Officer Drishti testified that Defendant, upon seeing the officers, did not react. Defendant simply kept walking toward them. (T20:25 to T21:1). The three officers approached Defendant immediately in a semi-circle or line. (T26:13-14). All three officers were uniformed. (T:51:25 to T52:2). Officers Drishti and Valez testified that Valez spoke to Defendant. (T21:3; T53:23-25).

The testimony of Officers Drishti and Valez differs slightly with regard to what was said to Defendant and the order in which it, was said. Valez testified: "[A]s [Defendant] walked towards [sic] us, I stopped him ... and I told him I received information that [he] might have a weapon on [him] and I wanted to give [Defendant] a pat down for our protection[.] I told [Defendant] he was free to leave at any time." (T44:3-8). Officer Valez testified that Defendant "put his arms up ...." (T44:12).

At that point, Officer Valez testified that he began the pat down. (T44:12-13). Valez testified that "as I was patting [Defendant] down, he hit my arm, he turned around and, he ran [and] the weapon fell from the back of his pants." (T44:13-14).

Officer Drishti's testimony on direct examination was that:

Officer Valez said to [Defendant,] is it all right if we pat you down for our safety? You can leave at any time.

And [Defendant] said, yeah, what's this all about?

[Defendant] started to get towards the fence [-] there was a fence there. I was on [] Officer Valez's left, Officer Miller was on his right, and as he was picking up to put his hand like towards [sic] the fence, he was asking, what's this all about.

And Officer Valez said, we got a call you might have a handgun on you.

At that moment, as Officer Valez started to try to pat him down, he may have touched him once or twice, as soon as he got like towards the back area, [Defendant] turned abruptly and like knocked [Officer Valez's] arm to the side and a handgun flew from the lower back area onto the sidewalk, and [Defendant] then proceeded to run south on Jackson....

(T11:9-25). Officer Drishti testified that the whole event took approximately two seconds. (T12:5).

In Valez's account, he notifies the Defendant of the call regarding the weapon before beginning the pat down. (T44:3-8). In Drishti's account, Valez requests the pat down for safety and mentions the tip only after the pat down begins and after Defendant asks "what's this all about." (T11:11-18). In either account, it is clear that the three officers stopped Defendant first, and then immediately requested consent to search him.

Officer Miller then secured the weapon. (T12:9-12). Officers Drishti and Valez gave chase, following Defendant into the building at 320 Jackson Street. (T12:16-21). Officer Drishti testified that they proceeded immediately to the roof and searched every apartment on the top two floors before returning to the street. (T31:21-24). The officers then returned to headquarters and placed the handgun in evidence and issued six warrants for the arrest of Defendant. (T13:10-12). Officer Drishti wrote the police report summarizing the, events.' (T13:16-17). Defendant was apprehended subsequently by a bounty hunter and turned in to police headquarters. (T14:14-17).

DISCUSSION

I. Governing Legal Standards

A. Supreme Court Pr...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • U.S. v. Waterman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 30 d3 Abril d3 2008
    ...describing defendant located on a specific street corner as an insufficient basis for reasonable suspicion); United States v. Crandell, 509 F.Supp.2d 435, 443 (D.N.J. 2007) (Court found anonymous tip call about a black male with dread locks and blonde tips wearing a tan shirt and blue jeans......
  • Thomas v. Del. River Port Auth.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 14 d3 Dezembro d3 2011
    ...to be possessed unlawfully until a gun owner proves otherwise. U.S. v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350, 357 (3d Cir. 2000); U.S. v. Crandell, 509 F. Supp.2d 435, 448 (D.N.J. 2007), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 554 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Booker, No. CRIM. 05-313 (JBS), 2005 WL 221......
  • U.S. v. Crandell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 29 d4 Janeiro d4 2009
    ..."Approximately halfway between Fourth Street and Fifth Street, [they] saw [Crandell] walking toward them."3 United States v. Crandell, 509 F.Supp.2d 435, 439 (D.N.J.2007). Crandell did not react when he saw the three uniformed officers and kept walking in their direction. The officers appro......
  • U.S. v. Crandell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 10 d2 Novembro d2 2009
    ...that Crandell was seized. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from Defendant's person is granted. 1. See United States v. Crandell, 509 F.Supp.2d 435 (D.N.J.2007). 2. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 3. The Government opted not to appeal this Court's rulin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT