U.S. v. Cofield
| Decision Date | 14 August 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-6244-CR.,99-6244-CR. |
| Citation | 108 F.Supp.2d 1374 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Terry COFIELD, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Laurence M. Bardfeld, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for plaintiff.
Patrick M. Hunt, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for defendant.
(CORRECTED) ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
This is a passenger train station stop and search case based on a profile. It led to the discovery of a little over one (1) kilogram of cocaine base in the defendant's duffel bag. The defendant, a twenty-nine (29) year old African-American male, claims that the detention and warrantless search of his luggage violated his constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure.1 The arresting officers claim that the bags they searched had been abandoned by the defendant. After an evidentiary hearing where two police officers, the defendant and his girl-friend testified, the Magistrate Judge found
the testimony of Detective Wolfkill and Sergeant Cooperman to have been fully credible. This determination is based upon each officer's demeanor and manner of testifying, as well as the consistency and logic of their rendition of the events of October 19, [1999]. By contrast, the testimony [of] the defendant was internally inconsistent and somewhat at odds with the testimony of Ms. Gibson. Moreover, the defendant is facing a very severe sentence and has a strong motive to fabricate his testimony.
The cause is before the Court on the defendant's Objection To The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [D.E. 22].
The single issue presented by the unique facts is whether the defendant abandoned his bag and any expectation of privacy after a warrantless stop and search conducted over protest. The legality of the initial stop is not an issue. Neither is there any disagreement that the defendant twice denied the officers' request for permission to search his luggage. In this de novo review of the proceedings before the Magistrate Judge the Court has considered the entire transcript of testimony produced at the hearing, the secretly recorded audio-tape of conversations between the defendant and his girlfriend made in the backseat of a police cruiser, along with the arguments of counsel.
There are of course two versions of the facts. Both versions are distilled here for the purpose of the review.
Government's version.
First to testify was Detective Robert Wolfkill of the Broward County Narcotics Unit. He testified that he sometimes works train stations, bus stations and airports for drug interdiction; that on the date of this arrest he arrived at the train station at 10:30 a.m. to conduct surveillance on passengers that were going to be departing at 11:30 a.m. riding the northbound train. Wolfkill said he "began to mill about the platform ... looking for suspicious people that are acting above and beyond that we normally see with law-abiding passengers." His attention was drawn to the defendant because initially he seemed to have no luggage, which he thought unusual for "law-abiding passengers" and he "appeared to be walking back and forth from the office area to the parking lot, walking around the building kind of aimlessly." Wolfkill, who said that he was dressed so as to not appear a law enforcement officer, kept the defendant under surveillance. About a half hour later other members of his unit arrived and they discussed the defendant, agreeing among themselves that he looked suspicious.
"Just shortly prior to the train arriving" he testified, we observed the defendant go to the parking lot, remove two bags from a parked vehicle, and walk toward the train. According to Wolfkill it is a common practice of drug smugglers to leave their narcotics in a stationary position away from themselves and then retrieve them at the last minute before boarding the train. A decision was made to have the canine dog smell-search the luggage.
At a later point the defendant, now joined by his female companion, turned around and began to quickly walk back toward the parking lot. During his attempt to walk toward the car through the platform area the canine dog and the handler "paralleled him" and the dog began to sniff the air around his person and bag. The defendant was stopped, advised by Wolfkill and another officer, Sergeant Cooperman, that they were police officers and was shown a badge. The defendant, who was carrying the bags high on his shoulders, was asked for permission to search them.2 According to Wolfkill he was "argumentative." He was told that the dog had alerted to narcotics and was asked a second time for permission to search. According to Wolfkill the defendant objected but then "took the bag off his left shoulder and his right shoulder, threw them on the ground, and advised us that the bags were not his." Cooperman, the other officer, began to search the bags as the defendant turned and walked away. A few seconds later the substance was discovered in the first bag examined and the defendant was apprehended and handcuffed.
The defendant and his female companion were placed in a marked police car where a tape recorder had been secreted to pick up conversations between the two.
Sergeant Cooperman's testimony about the apprehension and arrest was essentially the same except that he was clear that the defendant twice refused their requests for consent to search.
Defendant's version
The testimony of the defendant and his companion at the suppression hearing differed markedly from that of the detectives. The defendant testified that he arrived at the train station early and purchased a one way ticket to Mobile, Alabama. After purchasing the ticket and realizing that he had insufficient money for food he and his girlfriend, Barbara Gibson ("Gibson"), left the train station in order to find a convenient bank automatic teller ("ATM"). On return, they re-entered the station without the bags. After approximately a minute inside the station, the defendant left his girlfriend and returned to the car to retrieve the bags.
Gibson testified that she heard one of the detectives make a comment about the defendant, asking, "Where the hell is he going?" and she thereafter left the waiting area to tell the defendant what she had overheard. Suspecting that they were police officers the defendant, returning with the bags, decided to abandon the trip and turned about to leave the station. The defendant, tall and muscular, said he placed the bags on his shoulders to protect against a sniff by the small dog. As they proceeded toward their vehicle the detectives stopped them first asking for permission to search then ordering the defendant to drop his bags to allow a sniff by the dog. According to the defendant's companion, after the dog sniffed the defendant's bag, "[t]he officers took the bag and placed it on the bench." She testified further that the defendant never dropped or walked away from his bags but that the officers physically took the bags.
The defendant's testimony was consistent with that of Gibson. On direct examination he testified that the officer asked to search his bags but he refused. In response to the question on how he lost possession the defendant replied, "He took the bags." He further testified that he never dropped or abandoned his bags and that he never denied ownership of the items.
The tape recording
What makes this case different from most others where the credibility of the accused is pitted against that of the accuser is the recorded conversation between the defendant and his eight-month pregnant girlfriend which they thought was private. The officers testified that they were sure neither of the parties was aware that their conversations would be recorded. The defendant speaks first plotting Gibson's defense strategy and becomes irate that she may have something which could be used against her:
The defendant ponders the consequences, his miscalculation, and what he might have done to avoid being linked to the illegal drugs:
On reflection he seems to conclude that denying ownership would not have succeeded because of the likelihood that the officers had seen him with the bags earlier:
The defendant expresses concern that the case might be turned over to federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Ojonugwa
...of privacy in the abandoned property." United States v. Wolfe, 983 F.2d 232 (5th Cir. 1993). See also United States v. Cofield, 108 F. Supp. 2d 1374, 1380 (S.D. Fla. 2000), vacated on other grounds, 272 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). Abandonment, however, requires a clear renunciation of the p......
-
U.S. v. Cofield
...his criminal case for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). United States v. Cofield, 108 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (S.D. Fla. 2000). This case involves a warrantless search of Cofield's luggage at a train station. Whether or not that search violate......
-
U.S. v. Cofield, 99-6244-CR.
...Cir.2001). Facts The two versions of the facts are set out in the opinion entered by this Court and reported at United States v. Cofield, 108 F.Supp.2d 1374 (S.D.Fla.2000). All of the facts are not restated here. Only the testimony of the police officers differ in any material respect. An o......