U.S. v. Alexander

• Citation: 589 F.Supp.2d 777
• Decision Date: 27 August 2008
• Docket Number: Criminal Action No. 4:08-CR-104.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Demond Andrew ALEXANDER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

589 F.Supp.2d 777

UNITED STATES of America v. Demond Andrew ALEXANDER.

Criminal Action No. 4:08-CR-104.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division.

August 27, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Maureen E. Smith, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff.

Denise S. Benson, Federal Defender's Office, Sherman, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARCIA CRONE, District Judge.

Pending before the court is Defendant Demond Andrew Alexander's ("Alexander") Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (# 19). In his motion, Alexander seeks to suppress all physical, documentary, and other evidence seized, as well as oral statements made, in connection with the stop and search of his person and vehicle on November 30, 2006. Specifically, Defendant contends that the detention of his vehicle exceeded the scope of the initial traffic stop and that the subsequent warrantless search and seizure lacked probable cause. Thus, Alexander argues that the evidence was illegally obtained and is inadmissible as a matter of law. Having viewed the videotape of the stop and considered the testimony elicited during a hearing on the motion to suppress, the submissions of the parties, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion Defendant's motion should be denied.

I. Background

On November 30, 2006, Trooper Richard John Smith ("Smith") of the Texas Department of Public Safety ("DPS") was patrolling a stretch of Interstate 35 in Denton County, Texas.¹ At approximately 9:47 p.m., after observing a Chevrolet Monte Carlo with a defective rear license plate light pass by, Smith activated his emergency lights and pulled over the vehicle just north of Sanger, Texas.² Alexander was the driver and Jason Lee Walker ("Walker") was the sole passenger in the automobile. The entire traffic stop was recorded on a video camera installed in Smith's patrol car.

Smith approached the vehicle from the passenger side and entered into a brief discussion with the occupants. He explained the reason for the traffic stop and then requested a driver's license from both individuals. While engaged in conversation, Smith observed that Alexander and Walker avoided any kind of eye contact and exhibited extreme nervousness. He also testified that Alexander's hand was shaking as he relinquished his license and that Walker's carotid artery was pulsating. Further, he described Walker's breathing as "unusually heavy."

Noticing that Alexander presented an Arkansas driver's license and the vehicle bore Arkansas license plates, Smith was puzzled by the occupants' circuitous itinerary to their declared destination of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. As Smith testified, traveling from Little Rock, Arkansas, to Oklahoma City via Dallas was an "indirect route" and that "there was a much shorter way." Additionally, Smith noticed a number of air fresheners affixed throughout the interior of the vehicle, unopened packages of air fresheners on the floorboard, and a single key in the ignition. These factors, according to Smith, led him to believe that criminal activity was afoot.

Smith subsequently returned to his patrol car to perform driver's license and warrant checks. The dispatcher relayed the results of the checks—finding no outstanding warrants—at 9:53 p.m. Rather than immediately issuing a warrant or citation for the defective license plate light, Smith returned to the driver's side of the automobile to resume questioning the occupants due to his suspicion of nefarious activity. Within two minutes, the occupants communicated different accounts of their journey in separate interviews. Alexander stated that they had left Arkansas several days prior to the stop while Walker maintained that they had left that morning.

Based on what he perceived to be indicators of potential criminal activity, Smith requested consent to search the vehicle approximately twenty minutes after the stop was initiated. Alexander gave his consent. Upon the arrival of a second officer, a quick search of the interior of the vehicle revealed two false compartments secreted behind decorative panels containing what Smith believed to be "narcotics in bundles." Smith terminated the consent search, arrested Alexander and Walker, and advised them of their Miranda rights. After the vehicle was towed to a DPS office, an inventory search uncovered ten kilograms of cocaine.

II. Analysis

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. CONST. amend. IV. "The purpose of the `Fourth Amendment is to "shield the citizen from unwarranted intrusions into his privacy."'" United States v. Magana, 544 F.Supp.2d 560, 564 (W.D.Tex.2008) (quoting United States v. Ramon, 86 F.Supp.2d 665, 670 (W.D.Tex.2000) (quoting Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 499, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958))). It is well-settled that the temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, ___, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 2406, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); United States v. Jackson, 517 F.Supp.2d 859, 868 (W.D.La.2007) (citing United States v. Valadez, 267 F.3d 395, 397 (5th Cir.2001)). Nevertheless, because traffic stops are considered more akin to investigative detentions rather than formal arrests, "[a]n automobile stop is subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be `unreasonable' under the circumstances." Whren, 517 U.S. at 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769; see also United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 434 (5th Cir.1993).

Unlike more traditional searches and seizures, reasonableness in the context of traffic and investigatory stops does not turn on probable cause. In such instances, limited searches and seizures are justified when the police have reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that a crime has been or is being committed. See United States v. Vickers, 540 F.3d 356, 360-61 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Martinez, 486 F.3d 855, 861 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Jenson, 462 F.3d 399, 403 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Kye Soo Lee, 898 F.2d 1034, 1039 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1083, 113 S.Ct. 1057, 122 L.Ed.2d 363 (1993); United States v. Lee, No. 1:06-CR-125, 2007 WL 1567098, at *5 (E.D.Tex. May 29, 2007) (citing United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 430 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1222, 126 S.Ct. 1449, 164 L.Ed.2d 146 (2006)). "The law is sensitive to the specific facts of each case, gives due regard to the experience and training of police officers, and strives to balance the public interest against the individual's right to be free from arbitrary intrusions by the government." United States v. Salinas, No. 07-CR-436, 2008 WL 2571866, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2008) (citing United States v. Jaquez, 421 F.3d 338, 340-41 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir.2004)).

Traffic and investigatory stops oftentimes, as in this case, lead to the search for contraband. In these situations, in order to determine whether a search or seizure is "unreasonable" and in violation of the Fourth Amendment, courts must analyze: (1) whether the stop was justified at its inception; and (2) whether the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the stop or to reasonable suspicion that arose before the initial purpose of the stop was fulfilled. Terry v. State of Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Jenson, 462 F.3d at 403-04; Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d at 430; Brigham, 382 F.3d at 506; Lee, 2007 WL 1567098, at *5.

Generally, a defendant who seeks to have evidence suppressed bears the burden of proving that the evidence was seized illegally. See United States v. Hernandez-Reyes, 501 F.Supp.2d 852, 857 (W.D.Tex.2007) (citing United States v. Waldrop, 404 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir.2005)). When a search or seizure is conducted without a warrant, however, the burden shifts to the government to show that the search or seizure was reasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez, No. 5:07-CR-4, 2007 WL 2177340, at *6 (E.D.Tex. July 30 2007) (citing United States v. Chavis, 48 F.3d 871, 872 (5th Cir.1995)); Hernandez-Reyes, 501 F.Supp.2d at 857. Accordingly, in the instant case, the government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the stop of Alexander's vehicle was reasonable, i.e., that it was based upon probable cause that he committed a traffic violation and that the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle, and seizure of evidence, was reasonable.

A. Whether the Stop was Justified at its Inception

A stop is justified at its inception if the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. See Whren, 517 U.S. at 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769; see also United States v. Khanalizadeh, 493 F.3d 479, 482 (5th Cir.2007); Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d at 430 (citing United States v. Breeland, 53 F.3d 100, 102 (5th Cir.1995)). "The rule established by the Supreme Court in Whren allows officers to justify a stop by the occurrence of a traffic violation even though this is not the real reason for the stop." United States v. Cole, 444 F.3d 688, 689 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Whren, 517 U.S. at 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769). The legal justification for the traffic stop, however, must be "objectively grounded." Id. (citing United States v. Miller, 146 F.3d 274, 279 (5th Cir.1998)).

Here, the court finds...