U.S. v. Henderson, 1:07-CR-68-1.

• Decision Date: 25 April 2007
• Docket Number: No. 1:07-CR-68-1.,1:07-CR-68-1.
• Citation: 488 F.Supp.2d 648
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Carl HENDERSON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

488 F.Supp.2d 648

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Carl HENDERSON, Defendant.

No. 1:07-CR-68-1.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio.

April 25, 2007.

Roger S. Bamberger, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff.

James R. Willis, Myron P. Watson, Willis, Blackwell & Watson, Brian M. Fallon, Michael J. O'Shea, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. No. 122].

GWIN, District Judge.

With this Opinion and Order, the Court decides whether to grant the Government's motion to reconsider the suppression of certain evidence as it relates to Defendant Carl Henderson ("Henderson") in this drug conspiracy and possession case. [Doc. 122.] Specifically, the Government requests that the Court reconsider its decision to suppress evidence seized by the police during their search of the home of Henderson and Tekora Madden ("Madden"), Henderson's wife and a co-defendant in this case. Id. In this action, Henderson's other co-defendants include Gerald Taylor ("Taylor") and Maurion Lewis ("Lewis").

In two earlier decisions and based upon Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent, the Court suppressed evidence obtained by the police in their search of the home of Henderson and Madden (the "Wynde Tree Residence"). [Does. 111, 113.] Now, the Government requests that the Court admit the Wynde Tree Residence evidence as against Henderson despite the police's illegal acts in obtaining it despite the lack of attenuation between Madden's illegal arrest and her voluntary, but otherwise invalid, consent to search the Wynde Tree Residence. [Doc. 122.]

For the reasons presented below, the Court DENIES the Government's motion to reconsider its earlier decision to suppress evidence as to Defendant Henderson.

I. Background

As a threshold matter, the Court incorporates herein the facts and findings of this case based on the suppression motions of Defendants Madden and Henderson. See Does. 111, 113.

This Opinion and Order follows three prior rulings issued by the Court on April 13, 2007 that addressed individual suppression motions of Defendants Henderson, Madden, Taylor and Lewis. [respectively, Does. 46, 53, 33, 37] The Court issued standalone Opinions and Orders relating to each of Madden, Doc. 111, and Henderson, Doc. 113. The Court issued a single Opinion and Order addressing the suppression motions of Taylor and Lewis. [Doc. 112.]

In its April 13, 2007 Opinion and Order addressing Defendant Madden's suppression motion, the Court determined that the police illegally arrested her following an otherwise permissible roadside stop. [Doc. 111.] The Court also considered the validity of Madden's subsequent voluntary consent to search her home. Id. The Court determined that the Government did not demonstrate sufficient attenuation between Madden's illegal arrest and her otherwise voluntary consent and, consequently, found her consent to the search invalid. Id. at 24 (citing United States v. Lopez-Arias, 344 F.3d 623, 629 (6th Cir.2003)). As a result, the Court suppressed the Wynde Tree Residence evidence as to Madden. Id. at 24-25.

The Court then turned to the suppression motions of Defendants Taylor and Lewis. [Does. 33, 37.] After considering their pleadings and the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, the Court denied the motions of Taylor and Lewis and found that the police validly stopped, arrested, and confiscated evidence from them and from a motel room that they shared. [Doc. 112.] The Government does not contest the Court's findings relating to Taylor and Lewis in its present motion for reconsideration. [Doc. 122.]

Finally, the Court considered Defendant Henderson's suppression motion. [Doc. 46.] As part of its analysis relative to Henderson, the Court revisited the attenuation analysis that it applied in addressing Madden's motion. See Doc. 113 at 8-10. Having earlier determined that the police violated Madden's Fourth Amendment rights by illegally arresting her and, further, that the Government did not demonstrate adequate attenuation between Madden's arrest and her otherwise voluntary consent to search the Wynde Tree Residence, the Court suppressed evidence from the search of the home as the impermissible product of an invalid search. Id. In doing so, the Court relied upon Henderson's uncontested Fourth Amendment standing in the Wynde Tree Residence. See Doc. 113 at 8 (citing Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978)). The Court did not base its reasoning as to Henderson on Madden's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal seizure. Id. at 8-10.

With its instant motion, the Government asks the Court to reconsider its April 13, 2007 ruling as to Henderson, i.e., Doc 113, "and find that the Fourth Amendment does not require exclusion, as to Henderson, of either the physical evidence seized from the Wynde Tree residence or Henderson's subsequent statements relating to that seizure." [Doc. 122.] The Government bases its request on its conclusion that, "[b]ecause, as a matter of law, Carl Henderson has no standing to suppress evidence based on the violation of Madden's Fourth Amendment rights by her purported illegal seizure," the Court should reconsider its April 13, 2007 Opinion and Order as to Henderson. Id. (emphasis in original). The Government says that:

although the Court is correct in stating that the United States does not contest the general principal that Henderson has a privacy interest in the Wynde Tree residence, the United States does contest Henderson's ability to use the purported illegal detention of Madden, during which she otherwise gave voluntary consent to search the residence, to suppress the evidence related to that residence.

Id. (emphasis in original).

Thus, with its instant motion, the Government contests the Supreme Court's exclusionary rule and attenuation doctrine as adopted by the Sixth Circuit. See Doc. 122. In doing so, the Government presents two issues to the Court: (i) the legal nature and effect of Defendant Madden's otherwise voluntary consent to search the Wynde Tree Residence following her illegal arrest; and, (ii) Defendant Henderson's standing to suppress evidence stemming from the invalid search of his home. The Court discusses each issue in turn. The Court also considers the relevance of the Government's relied-upon authority, United States v. Hopper, 58 Fed. Appx. 619 (6th Cir.2003), to this case.

II. Legal Standard

Courts treat a motion for reconsideration as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60, 62-63 (6th Cir.1979). Such a motion is extraordinary and sparingly granted. Plaskon Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 644, 669 (N.D.Ohio 1995). A court may grant such a motion upon a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice. GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). "It is not the function of a motion to reconsider either to renew arguments already considered and rejected by a court or to proffer a new legal theory or new evidence to support a prior argument when the legal theory or argument could, with due diligence, have been discovered and offered during the initial consideration of the issue.'" McConocha v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio, 930 F.Supp. 1182, 1184 (N.D.Ohio 1996) (citation omitted).

III. Analysis

With its motion for reconsideration, the Government says that the Court committed clear error by suppressing the Wynde Tree Residence evidence as it relates to Henderson. [Doc. 122.] The Court disagrees. The Government does not demonstrate adequate reason for the Court to reconsider its previous Order granting Henderson's motion to suppress evidence seized and statements made in relation to the police's invalid search of the Wynde Tree Residence.

To facilitate analysis of the evidentiary issues relating to Henderson, the Court first discusses its earlier finding to suppress evidence from the Wynde Tree Residence as against Madden. The Court then discusses the issue of the suppression of the Wynde Tree Residence evidence as against Henderson. Finally, the Court interprets the issues and outcome of the Government's relied-upon authority for this motion — the Sixth Circuit's unpublished opinion in Hopper.

A. Suppression of the Wynde Tree Residence Evidence It Relates to Madden

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the people's right to security in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. When an illegal search or seizure occurs, the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained during the illegal police conduct and its derivative uses. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920). See also Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 393, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine suppresses evidence obtained through police misconduct. Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 64-65, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954).

The "fruits" of a Fourth Amendment violation include tangible items actually seized or observed in an illegal search, words overheard during the course of unlawful activity, or confessions or statements made during an illegal arrest or detention. United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 470, 100 S.Ct. 1244, 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980). "[S]tatements given during a period of illegal detention are inadmissible even though voluntarily given if they are the product of the illegal detention and not the result of an independent act of free will." Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 501, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). See also Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 633, 123 S.Ct. 1843, 155 L.Ed.2d 814 (2003) (reconfirming suppression of evidence obtained during a period of illegal seizure unless the statement was an act of free will sufficient...