United States v. Bohannon

• Decision Date: 31 May 2016
• Docket Number: Docket No. 14-4679-cr,August Term, 2015
• Citation: 824 F.3d 242
• Parties: United States of America, Appellant, v. Jonathan Bohannon, Defendant–Appellee, Ronell Hanks, aka Biz, aka Ace, Jermaine Buchanan, aka Hot Main, Rashad Heard, Omar Bahamonde, aka Dirk, Tavar Johnson, Moyan Forbes, Eboney Wood, aka Sis, Tysheem Wright, Sybil Hopkins, Steven Hutchinson, Aka L, Carlos Soto, aka Machon, Yazmine Morales, D'Metrius Woodward, aka Flea, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

824 F.3d 242

United States of America, Appellant

v.Jonathan Bohannon, Defendant–Appellee

Ronell Hanks, aka Biz, aka Ace, Jermaine Buchanan, aka Hot Main, Rashad Heard, Omar Bahamonde, aka Dirk, Tavar Johnson, Moyan Forbes, Eboney Wood, aka Sis, Tysheem Wright, Sybil Hopkins, Steven Hutchinson, Aka L, Carlos Soto, aka Machon, Yazmine Morales, D'Metrius Woodward, aka Flea, Defendants.

Docket No. 14-4679-cr

August Term, 2015

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: December 15, 2015

Decided: May 31, 2016

Tracy Lee Dayton, Assistant United States Attorney (Rahul Kale, Sandra S. Glover, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut, for Appellant.

Steven B. Rasile, Law Offices of Mirto & Rasile, West Haven, Connecticut, for Defendant–Appellee.

Before: Raggi, Wesley, Droney, Circuit Judges.

Reena Raggi

, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Jonathan Bohannon is awaiting trial in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet C. Hall, Chief Judge ) on charges of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and 280 grams or more of cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

, 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), 841(b)(1)(B)(ii), 846 ; possession with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base, see id. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) ; possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) ; and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, see id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).

On this interlocutory appeal, see 18 U.S.C. § 3731

, the United States challenges the district court's December 15, 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 Fourth Amendment challenge to the seizures at issue based on the fact that entry into Dickson's home was not authorized by a search warrant. See Steagald v. United States , 451 U.S. 204, 222, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) (holding search warrant necessary to protect privacy interests of third party whose home is searched for subject of arrest warrant). Nevertheless, the district court suppressed the seized drugs and money, concluding that, at the time arresting officers entered Dickson's home, they lacked the requisite reason to believe that Bohannon was then in the premises. See Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573, 603, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (holding that arrest warrant carries with it limited authority to enter subject's dwelling when there is “reason to believe” he is within). The government argues that the district court correctly relied on Payton , rather than Steagald , in analyzing Bohannon's Fourth Amendment challenge, but erred in concluding that the totality of circumstances failed to satisfy the reason-to-believe-presence prong of Payton

. We agree for reasons set forth in this opinion and, therefore, we vacate the challenged suppression order and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background¹

At approximately 6:00 a.m. on December 5, 2013, law enforcement officers entered Shonsai Dickson's apartment at 34 Morgan Avenue in Bridgeport, Connecticut (“34 Morgan Avenue” or “the premises”), to execute an arrest warrant for defendant Bohannon. Other officers were simultaneously executing arrest warrants for more than a dozen of Bohannon's confederates in the Trumbull Gardens Organization (“TGO”), whose narcotics and firearms trafficking had been the focus of a two-year investigation.

A. Determination of Bohannon's Whereabouts on December 5, 2013

On December 5, 2013, officers initially planned to arrest Bohannon at 103 Crestview Drive, his Bridgeport residence. Sometime between 5:00 and 5:30 a.m., however, the investigation's lead FBI agent, Michael Zuk, concluded that Bohannon was not at his home; rather, Zuk believed that Bohannon was at Dickson's 34 Morgan Avenue apartment, approximately two miles away. Zuk's belief was based on information provided to him by fellow officers that morning, viewed in light of the totality of information gathered in the TGO investigation. See generally United States v. Garcia , 413 F.3d 201, 213 (2d Cir. 2005)

(explaining that law enforcement officers may rely on “collective knowledge of their colleagues” in determining probable cause). The relevant information can be summarized as follows.

First , law enforcement officers physically surveilling 103 Crestview Drive on December 5 in anticipation of Bohannon's arrest saw “no indication” that he was in his home. Nov. 13, 2014 Hr'g Tr. (“Tr.”) 15:14. In particular, they saw no rental car parked in the vicinity of 103 Crestview Drive although, from the TGO investigation, they knew that Bohannon regularly drove rental cars not registered in his name.

Second , at approximately 4:00 a.m. on December 5, cell-site information provided by Verizon Wireless pursuant to a warrant indicated that at 2:38 a.m. that same morning, Bohannon's cell phone was used in a sector of Bridgeport that did not include his 103 Crestview Drive home.

Third , the Verizon data further showed that Bohannon's cell phone—which the TGO investigation indicated was used exclusively by Bohannon—had been in active use up until 2:38 a.m., whereupon it went silent, remaining so through the time of Bohannon's arrest.

From these facts, Zuk inferred that Bohannon had retired for the night soon after 2:38 a.m. at the location where he had last used his phone, which was not his home.²

Fourth , the Verizon data showed that within the cell phone sector where Bohannon's cell phone was last used at 2:38 a.m. on December 5, 2013, there was only one address to which Bohannon had been linked during the TGO investigation: 34 Morgan Avenue, the location of Dickson's apartment.³ The link was based on,

(a) Bohannon's own text messages (intercepted between September and December 2013 pursuant to court order) advising confederate Ronell Hanks that Bohannon was at or near Morgan Avenue;

(b) Bohannon's statement to authorities during an October 16, 2013 traffic stop that he was coming “from Morgan Avenue,” Tr. 12:10–17;

(c) authorities' observations of Bohannon, after the aforementioned traffic stop, driving to the general area of 34 Morgan Avenue and walking to the entrance door of that address; and

(d) data from Bohannon's previous cell phone, which on several occasions in 2013 placed him within 10 meters of 34 Morgan Avenue.⁴

Fifth , an October 2013 background property check of 34 Morgan Avenue revealed that the resident of that building's second-floor apartment was Shonsai Dickson. Agents were familiar with Dickson's name as that of the lessee of another apartment in Trumbull Gardens out of which TGO members were known to sell heroin.

Sixth , on November 26, 2013, surveillance officers had observed a Toyota Camry registered to Dickson parked in front of Bohannon's 103 Crestview Drive residence.

Seventh , officers observed Dickson's Toyota Camry parked outside 34 Morgan Avenue early on the morning of December 5.

B. The Challenged Arrest and Ensuing Search

Based on the totality of this information, Agent Zuk re-directed the Bohannon arrest team from 103 Crestview Drive to 34 Morgan Avenue. At the time, agents possessed an arrest warrant for Bohannon, but no arrest warrant for Dickson or search warrant authorizing entry into her apartment. Nevertheless, agents proceeded to enter Dickson's apartment through an unlocked back door and, upon finding Bohannon in Dickson's bedroom, placed him under arrest.

Simultaneously, members of the arrest team conducted a security sweep of the bedroom. Under the bed adjacent to where Bohannon was being arrested, authorities observed bags containing a white rock-like substance that they believed to be crack cocaine, which they did not immediately seize. Authorities also searched Bohannon's pants and in one pocket found a large quantity of cash, which they removed before giving the pants to Bohannon so that he could get dressed.

After Bohannon and Dickson were removed from the bedroom, FBI Agent Ryan James informed Dickson that drugs had been observed during the sweep and that she could be arrested for their presence in her apartment. James then sought, and Dickson provided, consent for a full search of her apartment and car. During this search, authorities seized the bags of crack cocaine earlier seen under the bed; money also found under the bed; additional crack, money, and a scale found in a dresser; and three firearms and ammunition found in a closet. A fourth firearm was seized from Dickson's car. As the drugs were being removed from under the bed and taken out of the bedroom, Bohannon shouted, “it is all mine, don't worry about it.” Tr. 119:10–11; see also id. at 74:23–25.⁵

C. District Court Proceedings

On December 18, 2013, a federal grand jury in the District of Connecticut returned an indictment charging Bohannon and thirteen confederates with various narcotics and firearms offenses.

Bohannon filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence seized from Dickson's apartment and car as the fruit of an illegal entry and an invalid consent. In arguing illegal entry, he advanced two arguments. First, while acknowledging that an arrest warrant carries with it the authority to enter the home of the warrant subject, Bohannon maintained that execution of such a warrant in a third party's home required the further entry authorization of a search warrant, which was plainly lacking here. See Steagald v. United States , 451 U.S. at 222, 101 S.Ct. 1642

. Second, Bohannon maintained that, even if Steagald protections did not extend to him, the entry and ensuing arrest and search were unlawful under Payton v. New York , ...