United States v. Ameling, No. CR02-3005-MWB (N.D. Iowa 8/22/2002)
| Decision Date | 22 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. CR02-3005-MWB,CR02-3005-MWB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOEL GERARD AMELING and TINA BROWN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
On January 24, 2002, a five count indictment was returned against defendants Joel Gerard Ameling and Tina Brown charging Ameling with conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846, possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), manufacturing or attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846, maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing or using methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), and possession of a firearm by a user of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). Defendant Brown is charged only with conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846.
On April 26, 2002, defendant Brown filed a motion to suppress. On May 1, 2002, defendant Ameling filed a motion to suppress. In their motions, defendants seek to suppress evidence seized after a traffic stop of the pickup truck in which they were riding. Defendants' motions to suppress were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On June 3, 2002, an evidentiary hearing was held. On June 26, 2002, Judge Zoss filed a Report and Recommendation in which he recommends that defendants' motions to suppress be granted. Judge Zoss concluded that the traffic stop of the pickup truck was invalid because the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. Judge Zoss further recommended that statements made by Ameling after his arrest be suppressed as the fruit of the illegal traffic stop.
The government filed objections to Judge Zoss's Report and Recommendation on July 7, 2002. The government objects to one factual finding in Judge Zoss's Report and Recommendation, as well as several legal conclusions reached by Judge Zoss. Defendant Ameling filed a resistance to the government's objections to Judge Zoss's Report and Recommendation on July 16, 2002. Defendant Brown filed a resistance to the government's objections to Judge Zoss's Report and Recommendation on August 5, 2002. The court, therefore, undertakes the necessary review of Judge Zoss's recommended disposition of defendants' motions to suppress.
In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Zoss made the following findings of fact:
On September 19, 2001, Van Pelt was working at the Target store in Fort Dodge, Iowa, in charge of store security, watching the video surveillance system monitors. The system is made up of several cameras, including stationary cameras, movable cameras that can be zoomed in or out, outdoor cameras, and public view monitors with a screen and a camera. The movable cameras can be controlled by Van Pelt from within the security office at the store, allowing him to follow people's movements both inside the store, and also outside at least as far away as the Hy-Vee store across the street from Target.
At about 2:45 p.m., while watching the monitors, Van Pelt saw a man and a woman, later identified as Ameling and Brown, in an aisle selecting multiple boxes of pseudoephedrine. Van Pelt testified he continued to watch the couple in order to prevent theft because the store had experienced a lot of theft of pseudoephedrine. In addition, Van Pelt had been through a training course given by the Fort Dodge Police Department that instructed participants to watch for people buying precursors for methamphetamine manufacture, including coffee filters, pill grinders, Coleman fuel, starter fluid, and multiple boxes of pseudoephedrine. Officers had advised store personnel that several people might come to the store together, and split up to purchase these items.
Van Pelt saw the couple walk together toward the checkout lanes, and then they separated and each went into a separate checkout lane. Van Pelt could see that each individual was purchasing two boxes of pseudoephedrine. Brown finished paying for her purchase first, and she went outside and stood next to a pickup truck. Ameling paid for his purchase, went outside, and met Brown at the truck. Van Pelt saw Ameling open the truck's tool box located in the back of the truck, and he saw Brown and Ameling each place one Target bag into the tool box.
Van Pelt called Officer Mernka and told him two individuals each had purchased two boxes of pseudoephedrine at the Target store. He gave Officer Mernka a detailed description of Brown and Ameling, as well as a detailed description of their truck that included the license number, which was visible from the outdoor surveillance camera. He also told Officer Mernka how the individuals had split up and exited through separate checkout lanes. While Van Pelt was talking to Officer Mernka, he continued to watch as Brown and Ameling drove across the street, parked the truck in the Hy-Vee parking lot, got out of the truck, and entered the Hy-Vee store. Van Pelt reported this information to Officer Mernka.1
When Officer Mernka received the call from Van Pelt, he got Officer Doty and the two drove to the Hy-Vee parking lot in an unmarked police vehicle. They located the truck Van Pelt had described and parked where they could watch it. While they were en route to Hy-Vee, Officer Doty called Karen Johnson, a pharmacy employee at Hy-Vee, gave her a physical description of Brown and Ameling, and alerted her that they might be buying lithium batteries or pseudoephedrine. A few minutes later, Johnson called Officer Doty on his cell phone and said Brown and Ameling had been spotted inside the store, and they were in the battery section buying a lithium battery. The officers saw Brown and Ameling exit Hy-Vee and get into the truck. As they started to drive out of the parking lot, Officer Mernka pulled in behind the truck and followed. He called for a marked patrol car to stop the truck, and Officer Wilkins responded. Officer Wilkins stopped the truck, and the officers' vehicles were parked around the truck in such a way that Ameling and Brown reasonably would have believed they were not free to leave the scene.
Officer Mernka approached the driver's side of the truck and Officer Doty approached the passenger's side. Ameling asked why they had been stopped, but Officer Mernka did not respond to the question.2 Officer Mernka testified Ameling seemed nervous.3 Ameling provided his name, driver's license, registration and insurance information. The officers verified that the truck was registered to Ameling, and the license plate number matched the number provided by Van Pelt. A check of wants and warrants revealed no outstanding warrants for Ameling or Brown, and Officer Mernka testified Ameling did not present himself as any threat to officer safety.
Officer Mernka asked Ameling to step out of the vehicle, and he asked Ameling what he and Brown were doing in town.4 Ameling said they had been shopping, not looking for anything in particular. He said they had to hurry home because they had to pick up a child. When asked, Ameling said they had not purchased anything at Target, and he did not remember buying anything at Hy-Vee. Officer Mernka told Ameling the officers knew he and Brown had purchased pseudoephedrine at Target, and Ameling did not respond. Ameling got back into the truck.
Meanwhile, Officer Doty was talking with Brown, who said they had been in town because she had a doctor's appointment. She said nothing about picking up a child. Brown said they bought donut holes and pop at Hy-Vee. She did not mention buying a battery; however, Officer Doty did not ask her if they had bought a battery. Brown said she had been looking at shoes in the Target store.
Officers Mernka and Doty conferred and learned Ameling and Brown had told them somewhat different versions of their activities. Officer Mernka asked Ameling if he could search the truck, and Ameling declined. Officer Mernka ordered Ameling out of the truck again, and the officers began to search the truck.
Officer Mernka testified the officers believed they had probable cause to search the truck because Brown and Ameling had bought precursors at Target and Hy-Vee (i.e., the pseudoephedrine and what officers believed to be a lithium battery), they had exited through separate checkout lanes at Target, they had paid with cash, they told the officers inconsistent stories about their purchases and their activities, and they were acting nervous.
Officer Mernka started searching the cab of the truck. Under the seats, he saw two plastic bags, a box of pseudoephedrine, hose clamps, a straw, and a Marlboro pack. He pulled all the items out and he could see that the K-Mart bag contained a box of pseudoephedrine. The other bag, from Hy-Vee, contained a nine-volt battery, and a receipt (Defendant. Ex. A) showing the purchase of the battery, donut holes and pop. Officer Mernka testified he could see the battery as soon as he pulled the items out from under the seat, and he could tell it was not a lithium battery.5
Officer Mernka testified that even though the battery turned out not to be a lithium battery, he still felt they had probable cause to continue searching the truck because Ameling and Brown had told different stories about why they were in town, and the officers had an eye-witness report that they had bought four boxes of pseudoephedrine. The officer had only found two boxes under the seat, and he wanted to know where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial