U.S. v. May
| Decision Date | 10 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 06-08 (06).,Criminal No. (07) (RHK/RLE). |
| Citation | 440 F.Supp.2d 1016 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Chad Michael MAY (06), and Christian Darryl Veith (07), Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Tracy L. Perzel, U.S. Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.
Kevin M. O'Brien, O'Brien Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants.
In a June 12, 2006, Report and Recommendation, Chief Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson has recommended that (1) Defendant May's Motion to Suppress Statements be granted in part; (2) Defendant May's Motion to Suppress Evidence as a Result of Search and Seizure be denied; and Defendant Veith's Motion to Suppress Statements be denied.
Before the Court are the Objections to the Report and Recommendation filed by both Defendants May and Veith. The de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and Defendants' Objections thereto, satisfies the undersigned that Judge Erickson's thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the issues before him should be adopted. The recommendations are fully supported by applicable legal precedent and the factual record before Judge Erickson. No useful purpose would be served by another opinion of this Court which would reach the same result as that reached by Judge Erickson.
Accordingly, and based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant May's Objections (Doc. No. 265) to the June 12, 2006, Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 259) is ADOPTED as to Defendant May;
3. Defendant's May's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. No. 211) is GRANTED IN PART (with respect to the statement made on December 11, 2005, without the benefit of a Miranda warning and while May was handcuffed and detained) and is in all other respects DENIED;
4. May's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as Result of a Search and Seizure (Doc. No. 213) is DENIED;
5. Defendant Veith's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 260) are OVERRULED;
6. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 259) is ADOPTED as to Defendant Veith; and
7. Defendant Veith's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. No. 232) is DENIED.
This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), upon the following Motions of the Defendants Chad Michael May ("May"), and Christan Darryl Veith ("Veith"):
1. May's Motion to Suppress Statements.
2. Veith's Motion to Suppress Statements.
3. May's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure.
A Hearing on the Motions was conducted on May 1, 2006,1 at which time, May appeared personally, and by William G. Selman III, Esq.; Veith appeared personally, and by Kevin M. O'Brien, Esq.; and the Government appeared by Tracy L. Perzel, Assistant United States Attorney.
For reasons which follow, we recommend that May's Motion to Suppress Statements be granted in part, and that the Defendants' other Motions be denied.
The Defendants are each charged with one Count of Conspiracy with intent to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. The events which give rise to the conspiracy charge are alleged to have taken place during the period beginning on or about, January 1, 2004, through at least on or about December 11, 2005. All of the events are alleged to have occurred in this State and District. As pertinent to those charges, and to the Motions pending before us, the operative facts may be briefly summarized, as they were developed during the testimony of witnesses who were called by the Government, and memorialized in the Government's Exhibits offered, and received into evidence.
At the Hearing on the Defendants' Motions, the Government presented testimony from Michael Bestul ("Bestul"), who is a Sergeant with the Brainerd Police Department; Andrew Galles ("Galles"), who is an Investigator with the Crow Wing County Sheriff's Department, and who is assigned to the Lakes Area Drug Task Force ("LADTF"); Ann Marie Hunnicutt ("Hunnicutt"), who is an Officer with the Baxter Police Department; and Jeremy Leese ("Leese"), who is a Special Agent with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and who was an Officer with the Brainerd Police Department at the time of the activities in question.
Bestul testified that he participated in an ongoing investigation, which focused on drug-trafficking between Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. During the early morning hours of December 11, 2005, Bestul, and other law enforcement agents, arrested Adam Monnes ("Monnes"), who is a co-Defendant, upon his arrival at an Amtrak station, where he was found in possession of large quantities of methamphetamine. Law enforcement also arrested Michelle Bohlke ("Bohlke"), who is also a co-Defendant, and who was waiting at the station to meet Monnes. As a result of those arrests, law enforcement placed Bohlke's residence under surveillance, and obtained a Search Warrant.
Galles and Hunnicutt testified that they obtained a Search Warrant for the Bohlke residence, and placed it under surveillance with other law enforcement officials. During the course of the surveillance, they learned that Chad Chisholm ("Chisholm"), who is a co-Defendant, was at the Bohlke residence, and was armed with a weapon. Approximately five (5) minutes after receiving the information about Chisholm, Hunnicutt observed a white van approaching the residence and learned from Russ Wicklund ("Wicklund"), who is a Baxter police officer, that the van pulled into the Bohlke residence's driveway, but that Wicklund was unable to observe the vehicle's license plate number. During the time that the house was under surveillance, law enforcement officials did not observe any persons exiting the residence, and it was decided that a tactical team of law enforcement officials would enter the residence before the investigative team's entry.
The tactical team entered the Bohlke residence, and secured the occupants, who were later identified as May and Chisholm, in handcuffs. Hunnicutt and Galles testified that May and Chisholm were detained incident to the execution of the Search Warrant, in order to effectuate officer safety. May was questioned about his arrival in the white van and his presence at the residence, at which time May confirmed that he was on probation. Officers performed a weapons pat-down on May, and discovered a marijuana pipe on his person. Hunnicutt testified that she knew May from previous interactions, including traffic stops, and was aware that May's driving privileges were revoked, and that he was on probation prior to the execution of the Warrant. May stated that he had been driving the van without insurance. Galles, who also testified that he was aware that May was on probation, as well as on conditional release in connection with charges in Crow Wing County, Minnesota, contacted May's probation officer, and explained that May had been driving without a valid license, and was also found with a marijuana pipe on his person. The probation officer advised Galles to place May under arrest for violations of his supervised release, as well as for driving with a revoked license. May was arrested and transported to the Brainerd Police Department.
Hunnicutt performed an inventory search of the white van prior to it being towed, which she testified was pursuant to the standard procedure of the Baxter Police Department. She discovered a number of documents, which she believed were "drug notes," in plain view inside of the van. The van was then towed to an Amoco station.
At 1:03 o'clock p.m., on that same date, May was interviewed by Bestul and Brian Marquart ("Marquart"), who is a Special Agent with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, after May's arrival at the Brainerd Police Department. Bestul testified that no statements by May were made prior to the recording, and that May appeared sober, without any apparent mental or physical impairments, and responded appropriately to questioning. The recording begins with Marquart explaining to May that he was under arrest for a probation or release violation, and May asked what would happen "when we're done here." Bestul and Marquart explained that May would be going to the County Jail for the violation, and that he would likely see a Judge on the following day. Bestul and Marquart asked May for his name, address, phone numbers, and his occupation. May was then advised of his Miranda rights, and was asked if he understood those rights. May invoked his right to counsel, and the interview was immediately stopped at 1:06 o'clock p.m.
While waiting for the Jail staff to transport May to a cell, May told Bestul that he wanted to speak further. Bestul testified that he advised May that he could not question May further, as he had invoked his right to an attorney. May reiterated his desire to speak, so Marquart and Bestul began recording their interactions with May for a second time, twenty-one (21) minutes after the conclusion of the first interview.
As memorialized by the transcript of the recorded interview, Marquart began by explaining that May had previously invoked his right to speak with an attorney. The following exchange then occurred:
Marquart: After that conversation, urn, you indicated that you wanted to speak with us, is that still true?
May: I believe so.
Marquart: Okay. You believe so? Or you know so?
May: Believe so. I still don't know what you wanna talk about yet.
Marquart proceeded to...
To continue reading
Request your trial