Garnett v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst.

• Decision Date: 10 April 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:11-cv-00765
• Parties: Timothy C. Garnett, Petitioner v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution, Respondent
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

Timothy C. Garnett, Petitioner

v.Warden, Noble Correctional Institution, Respondent

Civil Action 2:11-cv-00765

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: April 10, 2012

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

Petitioner Timothy C. Garnett, a State prisoner, brings this action under 28 U.S.C. §2254 alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States. This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Abel's February 23, 2012 Report and Recommendation that the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 be denied.

On March 5, 2012, petitioner Timothy C. Garnett filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner argues the public safety exception was not a valid nor constitutional basis for stopping his vehicle. Petitioner also argues that there was no valid constitutional basis for the subsequent custodial interrogation or search of his vehicle. Petitioner maintains that it was unconstitutional for Officer Pruitt to interrogate Garnet in the absence of Miranda warning. Petitioner argues that unconstitutional acts of Officer Pruitt were neither harmless nor permitted under the Public Safety Act.Petitioner further argues that Arizona v. Gant is controlling and that petitioner was entitled to a full, fair and non-abusive suppression hearing. Based on violations of petitioner's Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, petitioner maintains that an omnibus suppression hearing should have been held. Petitioner also argues that the Magistrate Judge erred when he concluded that plaintiff's August 23, 2011 motion for stay was moot.

I. Background and Procedural History

In May 2009, Garnett was indicted by Franklin County, Ohio Grand Jury on one count of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2923.12, one count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2923.16, and one count of having a weapon while under disability in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2923.13. Garnett pled not guilty to the charges in the indictment.

Prior to trial, Garnett filed a motion to suppress the fruits of an unconstitutional arrest and to suppress statements made to law enforcement officers and/or agents, and to suppress any evidence obtained from the disclosure of the statements. On October 9, 2009, Garnett filed a supplemental motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement officers during their search. On November 9, 2009, Garnett filed a motion in limine for an order suppressing statements, or in the alternative, for an order prohibiting the state from introducing certain statements made by him. The trial court held hearings on the motions. The suppression motions were denied, and the motion inlimine was preliminarily overruled. The trial court reserved further ruling on the motion in limine upon the presentation of the testimony and evidence,

The jury found Garnett guilty as charged in the indictment. On November 20, 2009, Garnett was sentenced to an aggregate term of four years to be served consecutively to a community control revocation in a prior case.

Petitioner asserts the following grounds for relief:

Ground one: Conviction obtained by use of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful arrest.

Supporting Facts: Officer didn't have probable cause to stop petitioner for a traffic violation, but was operating on a hunch. Officer then used phantom traffic violation to interrogate and search petitioners vehicle for contraband.

Ground two: Conviction obtained by use of evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure.

Supporting facts: Officer subjected petitioner to unconstitutional interrogation then violated petitioner by searching vehicle and using contraband at court to conviction petitioner.

Ground three: Conviction obtained by a violation of the privilege against self incrimination.

Supporting facts: Officer didn't inform petitioner of his Miranda rights but interrogated petitioner and used info from unlawful detention to convict petitioner by using his pre Miranda phone conversation to secure conviction.

Doc. 4 at 4-5.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County, set forth the facts of this case on direct appeal in case number 09AP-1149. The factual findings "shall bepresumed to be correct." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). Petitioner has "the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence." Id.

{¶ 3} On [January 31, 2009], Officer Ian Pruitt ("Pruitt"), a patrol officer with the Columbus Division of Police, was sitting in his police cruiser across from the Easy Mart at Karl Road and Shanley Drive. He observed appellant go into the Easy Mart and exit a few minutes later without having made a purchase. Pruitt's suspicions were aroused because narcotic sales involving the Easy Mart had been reported. Pruitt watched as appellant got into his vehicle and pulled out of the Easy Mart's lot onto Shanley Drive. Appellant, however, did not use a turn signal.

{¶ 4} Pruitt turned on his beacons, which activated the automatic video camera system for his cruiser. Pruitt followed appellant for approximately 100 yards before appellant pulled into the parking lot of a bar and stopped. Pruitt approached appellant's vehicle, which was revealed to belong to Tiffani Hardin ("Hardin"), appellant's girlfriend. Upon learning from appellant that his driver's license was suspended, Pruitt patted appellant down and placed him in the back of the cruiser. Pruitt called police dispatch, which verified that appellant's license was suspended and also informed Pruitt that appellant had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Pruitt testified that he then read appellant his Miranda rights.

{¶ 5} Pruitt advised appellant that he was "supposed" to take appellant to jail, tow the vehicle, and issue appellant a ticket. (Tr. 21.) Pruitt advised appellant that he was going to "look" in his car and asked appellant if he had any drugs or weapons in the car. (Tr. 22.) Appellant denied having any drugs or weapons but did state that his girlfriend had a gun. Pruitt asked appellant if he knew where the gun was; appellant replied that he did not. Pruitt then searched the vehicle and discovered a gun in a bag located behind the driver's seat. Pruitt testified that he conducted the search because the vehicle was "subject to impound." (Tr. 23.)

{¶ 6} While Pruitt was searching the vehicle, appellant was in the back of the cruiser, talking on his cell phone. Because the automatic video camera system for Pruitt's cruiser was activated, appellant's conversation was recorded. Appellant called his girlfriend, and can be heard telling her, "[b]ut I don't have the gun on me. It's probably in the car inside my bag." (Tr. 23-24.) Appellant can also be heard asking her, "[w]ell, will you just tell him it's just yours for me?" (Tr. 24.) Appellant also told his girlfriend,"[j]ust tell them that you have a black Glock." (Tr. 24-25.) Appellant had been watching Pruitt while he was talking on the phone and saw when Pruitt found the gun.

{¶ 7} After finding the gun, Pruitt approached appellant, and they conversed for several minutes. During their conversation, appellant repeatedly denied that the gun was his and pleaded with Pruitt not to arrest him. Two additional officers appeared on the scene and began "inventorying the vehicle subject to impound." (Tr. 49.)

{¶ 8} Pruitt testified that he found the gun in a bag behind the driver's seat. He also explained that because the car was subject to impound, safety concerns dictated that the car be searched. Regarding the search, Pruitt testified that it was the policy of the Columbus Police Department to search a vehicle, as well as the contents of the vehicle, when a vehicle is to be impounded. Pruitt stated that the policy is in place for safety reasons, as well as to guard against claims that personal items went missing from a vehicle after impound.

{¶ 9} Pruitt charged appellant with a violation of Columbus City Code section 2131.14(a) and for driving without a license.

{¶ 10} The trial court denied appellant's motions to suppress, and the matter proceeded to trial. A jury found appellant guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, and having a weapon under disability. The trial court sentenced appellant to 18 months of imprisonment on the carrying a concealed weapon and improper handling counts, and a four-year sentence on the weapon under disability count, to be served concurrently with each but consecutive to a sentence imposed on another case due to the revocation of judicial release.

State v. Timothy C. Garnett, 2010 WL 4925844 at *1-2 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th District Dec. 2, 2010).

II. Discussion

A. Fourth Amendment

Petitioner argues that he never made an illegal left turn, that Pruitt failed to immediately stop him, and that there was no valid warrant for him. Petitioner argues that the state court erred by failing to apply the holding of Arizona v. Gant to petitioner's case even thought it was decided only two months after his arrest. Petitioner maintains that the decision of the Supreme Court declaring a new constitutional rule applies to all similar cases pending on direct review and that he should have benefitted from the rule announced in Gant. Plaintiff argues that under Gant, the vehicle search violated petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights and the fruits of that search should have been suppressed.¹ Petitioner further argues that Officer Pruitt was not operating within legal guidelines or the authority of the City Code when he searched and impounded a vehicle that was on private property when making an arrest for a misdemeanor. The inventory search exception only applies if a vehicle has been lawfully impounded. Petitioner also argues that he did not violate Columbus City Code § 2131.14(a), and there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to support Officer...