U.S. v. Hartwell

Decision Date22 December 2003
Docket NumberCriminal Action No. 03-384.
Citation296 F.Supp.2d 596
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Christian HARTWELL.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Albert J. Raman, Lawrence R. Watson, II, Rossman D. Thompson, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

Peter F. Schenck, Richard P. Barrett, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

DuBOIS, District Judge.

ORDER

AND NOW this 22nd day of December, 2003, upon consideration of defendant Christian Hartwell's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements (Document No. 32, filed September 12, 2003), Government's Response to Defendant Christian Hartwell's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Document No. 42, filed October 10, 2003), Defendant Christian Hartwell's Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements (Document No. 47, filed November 26, 2003) and Government's Supplemental Response to Defendant Christian Hartwell's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Document No. 46, filed November 25, 2003) and the related submissions of the parties, following a Hearing and Oral Argument on November 18, 2003, IT IS ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, that defendant Christian Hartwell's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:

1. That part of the Motion to Suppress which seeks to suppress the drugs seized from defendant, Christian Hartwell, is DENIED;

2. That part of the Motion to Suppress which seeks to suppress the statements of defendant, Christian Hartwell, is GRANTED.

MEMORANDUM
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant is charged in a two count indictment with violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 for possession with intent to distribute approximately 375 grams of cocaine and approximately 94 grams of cocaine base ("crack"). The drugs were seized from defendant at the Philadelphia International Airport on Saturday, May 17, 2003, as defendant was passing through a pre-flight security screening checkpoint prior to catching a flight to Phoenix, Arizona. The pre-flight screening required defendant to walk through a magnetometer and to have his carry-on luggage x-rayed. Defendant placed his luggage on the conveyer belt and his bag passed inspection without incident. However, as defendant walked through the magnetometer, the alarm sounded. According to defendant, he was instructed to remove all metal from his person and to pass through the magnetometer a second time. Defendant said he complied with this instruction and sounded the alarm again.1 Defendant was then taken aside by Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") agent Carlos Padua, and told to empty his pockets of any metal. In response, defendant removed several items from his pockets, including a large amount of cash. Padua next instructed defendant to put the cash away and proceeded to use the handheld magnetometer, also called a "wand," in an effort to detect what had triggered the walk-through magnetometer. As Padua passed the wand over defendant's body, a solid object was detected in the lower leg pocket of defendant's cargo pants.2 Padua then asked defendant what was in his pocket.

At this point, the Government's and defendant's accounts of the events diverge. According to the defendant, after the wand alarmed and he failed to respond to Padua's inquiry regarding the object in his pocket, he was taken by Padua and another TSA agent, Leroy Kane, into a private screening room located approximately 40-60 feet away from the checkpoint area. Defendant testified that he did not request the private screening. Once in the screening room, defendant states that Padua asked him three times to remove the object from his pocket, but he was "non-compliant." (Transcript of November 18, 2003 Hearing on Motion to Suppress ("Tr.") at 127-28). As a result, defendant said Padua became frustrated, reached into defendant's pocket, and pulled out a package of drugs. At that point, either Padua or Kane summoned Philadelphia Police Officer Gerald Golden, who came into the room and asked defendant what was in the package. Defendant replied "foot powder." Tr. at 113. According to defendant, Officer Golden then searched defendant, retrieving two additional packages of drugs and over $3000 in cash. Officer Golden immediately called for back up, and after several officers responded defendant was placed in handcuffs and formally arrested. Defendant testified that he was never read his Miranda rights while at the airport.

The Government presented a different account of what took place after Padua detected the object in defendant's pocket. According to Padua, defendant requested the private screening, which TSA agents have a policy of honoring. Padua further testified that once he and defendant reached the screening room, Padua asked defendant several times to remove the item from his pocket, but defendant did not comply. Defendant became visibly nervous at the requests and started backing away. Padua also testified that at about the same time, defendant dropped his pants. Because of defendant's suspicious behavior, Padua told Kane to notify the Supervisor who, in turn, summoned Officer Golden. According to Padua, after Officer Golden arrived and asked what defendant had in his pocket, defendant pulled out the first package of drugs himself. Padua denies ever reaching into defendant's pocket. Padua also testified that at some point, defendant feigned falling and dropped a second package of drugs, which was later retrieved by Officer Golden, behind a table. Padua said the third package of drugs was recovered from defendant in a search by Officer Golden.

Officer Golden's testimony confirms Padua's account, except that, according to Golden, all three packages were produced by defendant. The first package was thrown under the table, the second package fell out of defendant's pocket when he dropped his pants, and the third package was handed to Golden by defendant when Golden asked him what he had in his pocket. Golden denies removing a package of drugs from defendant's pocket.

After defendant was arrested, he was transported to the airport police headquarters where the airport police decided to refer him to the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force ("DEA"). Philadelphia Police Officer James Corbett and Pennsylvania State Trooper Joseph Nigro, working as DEA Task Force Officers, arrived at airport police headquarters at approximately 11:30 a.m., four and a half hours after defendant was initially arrested. Corbett and Nigro took defendant into custody and transported him to DEA headquarters at the Federal Building in Philadelphia, stopping at the DEA sub-office en route.3 Defendant was placed in the DEA lockup. Shortly thereafter, he was moved by Corbett and Nigro to an interview room for interrogation. According to Corbett, defendant was Mirandized prior to being interviewed and thereafter stated he understood he had a right to an attorney but wanted to explain to the agents why he decided to get involved with drugs. Defendant then told the agents that he had borrowed $21,000 from a man in Arizona and had come up with the idea of buying drugs in Philadelphia for use in repaying the debt.

Defendant testified, in contrast, that he requested an attorney shortly after being placed in the interrogation room:

I had told Officer Corbett at the time when we came in the room, the first thing I remember they asked well, do you want to help yourself. And would you consider — before even being read my Miranda rights, they asked me would you be willing to wear a wire or consider, you know, wanting to help us out or you're facing a mandatory minimum ten years. And some other things. And I said, well, I really would like to speak to an attorney. Officer Corbett said I would not be—you won't be able to get an attorney until sometime next week. I said I really would like to speak to one. He said we wouldn't be able to get you one until next week.

Tr. at 120. Defendant was questioned further on this subject by the Court in the following exchange:

Court: Now you testified that you were taken to a floor in the Federal Building and placed in a room, you called it a conference room. I think the police officers described it as a witness room. But in any event, when you were there, you said you were read your Miranda rights, is that correct?

Defendant: I was placed in a cell.

Court: And then put in a conference room?

Defendant: Yes, sir.

Court: And you were read your Miranda rights in the conference room?

Defendant: Interview room, yes, sir.

Court: And you didn't make any statement to the police before you were read your Miranda rights, is that correct?

Defendant: Not that I recall, no, sir, Your Honor.

Court: When they read your Miranda rights and you said they told you that you could have a lawyer, but they said that they couldn't get a lawyer for you until Monday. At that time, did you decide that you would talk to the police and give them a statement?

Defendant: Well, I asked them first that I wanted to speak to an attorney. And he advised me that he couldn't— they couldn't get one for me for that interview or anything.

Court: On Saturday?

Defendant: Yes, Sir.

Court: But you were told in that same interview that you didn't have to talk to the police without an attorney, is that right?

Defendant: That is correct, yes, sir.

Court: And they said they could get you an attorney either on Monday or next week, is that right?

Defendant: They just said wehe said we wouldn't be able to get you one until next week. He didn't specify a day or time, he just said next week.

Court: And then when you heard that, you decided to go ahead and speak to the police about whatever they were going to ask you?

Defendant: Yes, he asked me a few questions and I just answered, yes, sir.

Tr. at 133-35.

On...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • U.S. v. Hartwell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • January 31, 2006
    ...the magnetometer at least once and that Padua attempted to resolve the alarm through the use of the wand." United States v. Hartwell, 296 F.Supp.2d 596, 603-04 (E.D.Pa.2003). The Court also noted that Hartwell "does not dispute that he was instructed to remove all metal objects from his per......
  • State v. Brandon
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • December 30, 2022
    ...officer's] immediate control, and then questioned systematically about his role in a criminal episode"); United States v. Hartwell , 296 F. Supp. 2d 596, 606–607 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (defendant was subject to custodial interrogation because he "was in a small private room, surrounded by two [Tra......
  • Kjolhede v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 2009
    ...search procedures mandated by the TSA have every indicia of being the most efficacious that could be used. See United States v. Hartwell, 296 F.Supp.2d 596, 602 (E.D.Pa.2003), aff'd, 436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir.2006). We agree with the assessment of the Houston Court of Appeals in Turner that the ......
1 books & journal articles
  • The warrantless interception of e-mail: Fourth Amendment search or free rein for the police?
    • United States
    • Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal Vol. 36 No. 2, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272, 1275 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 910 (9th Cir. 1973); United States v. Hartwell, 296 F. Supp. 2d 596, 602-05 (E.D. Pa. 2003); People v. Hyde, 524 P.2d 830 (Cal. (64.) Hyde, 524 P.2d at 841-42 (Wright, J., concurring) (emphasis added) (foot......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT