United States v. Bohannon

Decision Date15 December 2014
Docket NumberCriminal Case No. 3:13–CR–229.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, v. Jonathan BOHANNON, Defendant.

Rahul Kale, Tracy L. Dayton, U.S. Attorney's Office, Bridgeport, CT, for United States of America.

Steven B. Rasile, Law Offices of Steven B. Rasile, West Haven, CT, for Defendant.

RULING RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE (Doc. No. 134)

JANET C. HALL, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the court is defendant Jonathan Bohannon's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. 134). Bohannon argues that the government's search of Shonsai Dickson's car and apartment—the apartment at which he was staying when he was arrested—violated his Fourth Amendment rights. On August 22, 2014, the court held argument on Bohannon's Motion to Suppress Evidence. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Motion on November 13, 2014.

For the reasons that follow, Bohannon's Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL FINDINGS

On December 4, 2013, Magistrate Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons signed an Arrest Warrant (Doc. No. 3) based on the government's Criminal Complaint (Doc. No. 1), which alleged that Bohannon committed Conspiracy to Distribute and to Possess with Intent to Distribute Narcotics, in violation of sections 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846 of title 21 of the United States Code, as well as Use of a Communications Facility in Furtherance of a Narcotics Trafficking Felony, in violation section 843(b) of title 21 of the United States Code.

In the early hours of December 5, 2014, law enforcement officers, including agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”) and detectives of the Bridgeport Police Department, prepared their arrest operation at Central High School, which is in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The officers' original plan was to arrest Bohannon in his home, which was located at 103 Crestview Drive in Bridgeport, Connecticut. However, the officers' arrest plan changed when Special Agent (“SA”) Michael Zuk, the agent in charge of the case against Bohannon and his co-defendants, received information that Bohannon's cell phone was within an area that did not include his residence.1 The cell phone data was not able to pinpoint exactly where Bohannon's phone was, but it gave a general area based on the location of the cellular tower with which Bohannon's phone had most recently interacted.2 The location information provided by Verizon according to the wiretap warrant included a residence located at 34 Morgan Avenue, which is also in Bridgeport, Connecticut.3 The location of 34 Morgan Avenue is roughly two miles southeast of 103 Crestview Avenue. In addition to 34 Morgan, the area indicated by the cellular location information included many other buildings.

Having received this information, SA Zuk told the agents to conduct the arrest operation at 34 Morgan because of Bohannon's perceived association with that address. See infra Part III.C.

The officers proceeded from Central High School to 34 Morgan, which took only a short time because the two properties abut each other. Once the officers arrived at 34 Morgan, SA Ryan James and other officers knocked and announced their presence at the front door. Meanwhile, Bridgeport Police Detectives Paul Ortiz and Thomas Scholl, went to the back entrance of Dickson's second floor apartment and knocked on the door. Having heard no response, Detectives Ortiz and Scholl opened the door, which was unlocked, and entered the apartment. The officers at the front door continued to wait outside the apartment.

Certain details of what happened in the apartment are disputed, but the general outline of what occurred is relatively simple.4 Dickson awoke to her sister informing her that someone was knocking on the front door. Two officers then entered the apartment into the kitchen, where they saw Dickson briefly before she entered another room. The officers followed Dickson into what turned out to be a bedroom, where they saw Bohannon lying in a bed.5 Dickson stood next to the bed on the side closer to the doorway, and Bohannon was lying on the side of bed closer to the window. The officers stated that they had a warrant for Bohannon's arrest. Bohannon stood up next to his side of the bed, where he was next to the windows and a closet. The officers then approached Bohannon's side of the bed, looked around quickly, and began placing Bohannon under arrest. Before Bohannon was handcuffed, Detective Ortiz left the bedroom and walked to the front door, which he opened for the rest of the arrest team to enter.

SA James and the other agents had waited for about eight minutes at the front door before Detective Ortiz let them in the apartment. The arrest team entered the bedroom to find Dickson standing on one side of the bed and Bohannon on the other.6 Officer Scholl stood near Bohannon, but he had not yet handcuffed him. SA James testified that, as he and Task Force Officer (“TFO”) Jason Guerrara approached Bohannon and Officer Scholl, Officer Scholl indicated to him to look under the bed. As SA James held Bohannon and TFO Guerrara put him in handcuffs, SA James looked under the bed and saw bags containing white powder. He identified the substance as crack cocaine.

At some point, Bohannon was allowed to put a pair of pants on. Before Bohannon put the pants on, an officer searched the pants and found a large amount of cash. Bohannon was handcuffed and brought into the kitchen.

At about the same time, Dickson was removed from the room and brought to the dining room. Dickson testified that the officers were kind to her. Indeed, on their way to the dining room, the officers allowed her to go into the bathroom unaccompanied so that she could brush her teeth. After she and Bohannon were both removed from the bedroom, Dickson said that officers had gone into the bedroom to retrieve Bohannon's shoes. After that, officers came to the dining room and told her that they had found crack cocaine while conducting an “arms-length” search. Dickson had been a Criminal Justice major in college, and she had some understanding that officers were allowed to conduct a limited search, incident to an arrest, of the area in which the arrestee could reach for a weapon or destructible evidence. The officers informed her that she and her sister, who shared the apartment with her, could be arrested based on the drug evidence the officers had found.7 As the officers explained this, Dickson became upset and Bohannon began shouting from the kitchen, confessing that everything was his. The officers asked for her consent to search the apartment, and they told her they would obtain a search warrant if she did not consent. Dickson gave the officers verbal consent to search. Dickson signed a form consenting to the search of her apartment after she read the form to herself and the officers read it out loud to her.

Later, although it is not clear exactly when, the officers sought her consent to search her cars, which they believed Bohannon had been using. Dickson gave her consent verbally and then on the consent form. The officers also presented her with her Miranda rights, and Dickson then signed a form acknowledging those rights.

After the officers obtained Dickson's consent to search the apartment, they found guns and ammunition in the bedroom closet next to where Bohannon had been sleeping, as well as more crack cocaine, a digital scale, and cash in a dresser drawer in the bedroom. With Dickson's consent to search her car, the officers found another gun in the Camry.

Bohannon was later charged by a Grand Jury on four counts. Count One of the Indictment (Doc. No. 14) charges Bohannon with Conspiracy to Distribute and to Possess with Intent to Distribute Narcotics. Count Five charges him with Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base. Count Fifteen charges him with Possession of Firearms and Ammunition by a Convicted Felon. Finally, Count Sixteen charges him with Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking Crimes. Counts Five, Fifteen, and Sixteen are based on the evidence found in Dickson's apartment and car on December 5, 2013.

III. DISCUSSION

Bohannon's Motion to Suppress Evidence presents a number of issues. The court must first consider: (1) whether Bohannon had a privacy interest in either the searched apartment or in the searched cars; and (2) whether the government needed to have a search warrant in order to find and arrest Bohannon in Dickson's apartment. Because the court concludes that Bohannon had a privacy interest in the apartment and the government did not need a search warrant, the court must then determine: (3) whether the government's belief that Bohannon was in Dickson's apartment was reasonable; (4) whether the government's searches under the bed and in the pockets of Bohannon's pants were valid; (5) whether any illegality tainted Dickson's consents, and if so, whether that taint had dissipated before the consents were given; and (6) whether Dickson's consents to search were voluntary. Finally, the court must decide whether the exclusionary rule should not apply based on Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009).

With respect to the search of Dickson's Toyota Camry, the court concludes that Bohannon cannot challenge the legality of that search because he had no privacy interest in the car. However, the court also concludes that: Bohannon had a privacy interest in the apartment; the government did not have a reasonable basis to believe that Bohannon was present in the apartment; the evidence obtained under the bed and in the pockets of Bohannon's pants was fruit of the illegal entry; and that Dickson's consent to search her apartment was both tainted by the illegal entry and involuntary. Finally, the court concludes that Herring does not prevent the application of the exclusionary rule to this case.

A. Bohannon's Privacy Interest

The “capacity to claim the protection of the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • United States v. Bohannon
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 31, 2016
    ...2014 order suppressing drugs and money seized incident to Bohannon's arrest in the home of Shonsai Dickson. See United States v. Bohannon , 67 F.Supp.3d 536 (D. Conn. 2014). The district court ruled that because Bohannon's apprehension was pursuant to an arrest warrant, he could not mount a......
  • United States v. Bohannon, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:13–CR–229 (JCH)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • March 27, 2017
    ...could not challenge the legality of the search. See Def.'s Mot. to Reconsider (Doc. No. 699) at 1; see also United States v. Bohannon , 67 F.Supp.3d 536, 542–43 (D. Conn. 2014). For the reasons that follow, Bohannon's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.II. BACKGROUNDBohannon was arrested inside......
  • United States v. Bohannon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • April 28, 2017
    ...28th day of April, 2017. /s/ Janet C. Hall Janet C. Hall United States District Judge 1. The Suppression Ruling is also available at 67 F. Supp. 3d 536. Throughout this Ruling, citations to the Suppression Ruling will refer to the pagination in the version at Docket Number 432, rather than ......

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