U.S. v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 27 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 07-297(3) (DWF/JSM). |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Joe Darrell EDWARDS, Jr., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
David P. Steinkamp, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, for Plaintiff.
Jordan S. Kushner, Esq., Law Office of Jordan S. Kushner, for Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS MODIFIED
This matter is before the Court upon the objection of defendant Joe Darrell Edwards, Jr. to the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") dated June 13, 2008 of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron (Doc. No. 362), which recommends denying Edwards' Motion for Suppression of Confessions or Statements (Doc. No. 209); Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search or Seizure (Doc. No. 212); Motion to Suppress Record of Electronic Surveillance (Doc. No. 214); Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 9 (Doc. No. 215); Motion to Strike Surplusage (Doc. No. 216); Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 9 (Doc. No. 318); and Motion to Suppress Witness Identifications (Doc. No. 321).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which Edwards has objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Crim.P. 59(B)(3). . This Court agrees with Judge Mayeron's recommendation and adopts the R & R except as modified herein.
Edwards has objected to the R & R's recommendation to deny his motion to suppress evidence regarding a gun found in an apartment during a search on August 13, 1994. The R & R states that Minneapolis Police Officer Christopher Abbas testified before the Magistrate Judge that he and his partner were at the door of the apartment, and Edwards stated to another individual, (R & R at 986, 987.)
The R & R states that Officer Abbas testified that he was concerned for his safety, and that he asked Edwards to step aside from the doorway so that he could do a safety sweep of the apartment, but that Edwards refused. (Id. at 987.) The R & R further states that Officer Abbas testified that he grabbed Edwards so that he could see past Edwards into the apartment, and observed other individuals running toward the rear of the apartment; Officer Abbas indicated that this raised further safety concerns for him. (Id. at 987-88.) The officers then entered the apartment and discovered a loaded gun in plain view sitting on a bed in the apartment. (Id. at 987-88.)
Edwards argues that evidence regarding this gun should be suppressed because neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances were present so that the entry and search were unlawful. Edwards also objects to a statement in the R & R that "[p]robable cause is not required for exigent circumstances," as contrary to law. (Id. at 996-97.)
"[T]he Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house." U.S. v. Vance, 53 F.3d 220, 221 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)). A warrantless search, however, is permitted when both probable cause and exigent circumstances exist. U.S. v. Parris, 17 F.3d 227, 229 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1077, 114 S.Ct. 1662, 128 L.Ed.2d 378 (1994); U.S. v. Schmidt, 403 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir.2005) (). Exigent circumstances exist where officers reasonably believe that "lives are threatened, a suspect's escape is imminent, or evidence is about to be destroyed." United States v. Williams, 521 F.3d 902, 908 (8th Cir.2008).
Notwithstanding the error contained in the R & R's statement that probable cause is not required, the Magistrate Judge also found that the officers had both probable cause and exigent circumstances, justifying the entry and search. (R & R at 996-97). This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's ultimate conclusion that both probable cause and exigent circumstances were present, when Edwards instructed another person to go and get a gun in order to handle the situation with the officer; the officer reasonably could have believed that Edwards intended to use a gun against the officer and his partner. Exigent circumstances clearly exist when law enforcement officers have a "legitimate concern for the safety" of themselves and others. Vance, 53 F.3d at 222. The entire concept of exigent circumstances involves prevention of harm and, therefore, a law enforcement officer need not wait for a bullet to be fired before he or she takes steps to avert the danger.
Therefore, based upon its de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and submissions of the parties and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the following:
ORDER2. Edwards' Motion for Suppression of Confessions or Statements (Doc. No. 209); Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search or Seizure (Doc. No. 212); Motion to Suppress Record of Electronic Surveillance (Doc. No. 214); Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 9 (Doc. No. 215); Motion to Strike Surplusage (Doc. No. 216); Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 9 (Doc. No. 318); and Motion to Suppress Witness Identifications (Doc. No. 321), are DENIED.
The above matter came on before the undersigned upon defendant Joe Darrell Edwards's Motions: for Suppression of Confessions or Statements [Docket No. 209]; to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure [Docket No. 212]; for Suppression of Records of Electronic Surveillance [Docket No. 214]; to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 9 [Docket No. 215]; to Strike Surplusage [Docket No. 216]; Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2 and 9 [Docket No. 318]; and to Suppress Witness Identifications [Docket No. 321]. This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation by the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1.
Assistant United States Attorney David Steinkamp appeared on behalf of the Government; Attorney Jordan Kushner appeared on behalf of defendant Joe Darrell Edwards, who was personally present.
Based upon the pleadings, testimony taken at the hearings, exhibits submitted at the hearings, pre-hearing submissions, and post-hearing submissions, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
1. Joe Darrell Edwards's Motion for Suppression of Confessions or Statements [Docket No. 209] be DENIED;
2. Joe Darrell Edwards's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure [Docket No. 212] be DENIED;
3. Joe Darrell Edwards's Motion for Suppression of Records of Electronic Surveillance [Docket No. 214] be DENIED as moot based on the pre-hearing submission of the Government and the representations of defendant's counsel during the hearing;
4. Joe Darrell Edwards's Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 9 [Docket No. 215] be DENIED;
5. Joe Darrell Edwards's Motion to Strike Surplusage [Docket No. 216] be DENIED;
6. Joe Darrell Edwards's Motion to Suppress Witness Identifications [Docket No. 321] be DENIED.
Defendant has been indicted on two counts of conspiracy relating to the distribution of narcotics ranging over a seventeen-year period. See Indictment, Counts 1 and 2. Defendant was also charged with one count of aiding and abetting the distribution of narcotics on October 15, 2005. See Indictment Count 9. Defendant now seeks an order from the Court dismissing the Indictment against him on numerous grounds and seeks the suppression of a myriad of evidentiary items and statements arising from incidents that occurred between 1994 through 2006.
Officer Christopher Abbas, with the Minneapolis Police Department, testified that on August 13, 1994, at approximately 11:00 p.m., he and his partner responded to a loud party call at an apartment complex located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Tr. 118-19. They had received a tip from a caller that a loud party was taking place in Apartment 305. Tr. 119. The officers discovered that the commotion was actually emanating from Apartment 303. Id. Officer Abbas testified that a person who came out of Apartment 303 started yelling, Tr. 120. According to Officer Abbas, the phrase "5-0" is a common reference for the police. Id. People from other apartments began coming out to see what was going on, Id. The officers knocked on the door of Apartment 305, and Marquise Bowie answered the door. Tr. 121. Bowie proceeded to tell the officers that they had turned down the "fucking music" and then slammed the door in their face. Tr. 121. The officers noticed that the individual who had been yelling "5-0" had returned to the hallway and got into a physical altercation with Officer Abbas' partner. Tr. 122. Officers placed the individual against the wall and patted him down for officer safety. Id.
While the officers were dealing with the individuals in the hallway, the door to Apartment 303 opened and defendant appeared at the door with another person. Tr. 123. Defendant told the other individual, "Ferguson," to, Id. Officer Abbas testified that Ferguson disappeared behind Edwards and that he could not see where Ferguson went because defendant was standing in the doorway. Tr. 136. The officers were not questioning defendant when he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Aniceto v. Foulk
-
US v. Williams
... ... United States, 729 F.2d 935, 940 (8th Cir. 1984) ("As a general rule, the burden of proof is on the defendant who seeks to suppress evidence, but on the government to justify a warrantless search.") (citations omitted); see also United States v. Edwards, 563 F.Supp.2d 977, 994 (D.Minn ... 690 F. Supp.2d 849 ... 2008) ("At the end of the day, as the moving party, at a minimum it is defendant's burden to come forth with some evidence and argument to support his position that evidence, statements or a witness identification should be ... ...
- United States v. Taylor
- United States v. Furman