United States v. Baxter
| Decision Date | 15 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 13–CR–186–JPS. |
| Citation | 982 F.Supp.2d 886 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jordan BAXTER and Rolando Rodriguez, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Laura Schulteis Kwaterski, United States Department of Justice, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff.
Scott A. Wales, Law Offices of Scott A. Wales LLC, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendants.
On October 17, 2013, Defendant Jordan Baxter filed a motion to suppress statements she made during several interviews that took place following the bank robbery for which she is now under indictment. (Docket # 19). Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein issued his report and recommendations on November 7, 2013. (Docket # 26). The Court thereafter spoke with Ms. Baxter's counsel who agreed to shorten his otherwise-allotted time to file objections to Magistrate Goodstein's report and recommendations, in order to allow the Court to address the objections and report and recommendations before the plea agreement cutoff date. The Court shortly thereafter entered an order in that regard, and Ms. Baxter filed her objections on November 14, 2013 to which the Government responded. (Docket # 27; # 28; # 29). The Court has reviewed Ms. Baxter's submission and now adopts Magistrate Goodstein's report and recommendations.
When reviewing a magistrate's recommendation, the Court is obliged to analyze the recommendation de novo.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Thus, the Court can “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id. In other words, the Court's de novo review of Magistrate Goodstein's findings and recommendations is not limited to his legal analysis alone; rather, the Court may also review his factual findings, and accept, reject, or modify those findings as it sees fit based upon the evidence. Id.
The police in this case conducted three separate interviews with Ms. Baxter, two of which she challenges. The Court sets forth the circumstances of each interview separately, as follows.
2.1 Officers' Arrival On Scene and First Bank Interview
According to the charges in the Indictment, on August 6, 2013, the Greendale, Wisconsin, branch of PNC Bank was robbed. (Docket # 12). Ms. Baxter was an employee of PNC at the time and was the teller who was held up by the robber. (Docket # 26, at 2).
Greendale Police Detective Jeremy Vlaj responded to the scene and shortly thereafter interviewed Ms. Baxter for approximately twenty to thirty minutes, beginning at approximately 11:30 a.m. (Docket # 26, at 2). This first interview was very informal and occurred in one of the personal offices of a bank employee. (Docket # 26, at 2). Detective Vlaj did not view Ms. Baxter as a suspect at this time; he still viewed her only as the teller who was held up by the robber, and wished to get a description of the robber from her. (Docket # 26, at 2).
2.2 Second Bank Interview
Detective Vlaj's view of Ms. Baxter changed shortly thereafter: bank officials calculated that the amount stolen by the robber was unusually high, prompting Detective Vlaj to view Ms. Baxter as a potential accomplice of the robber. (Docket # 26, at 2). That suspicion, further supported by his discovery that Ms. Baxter had allegedly been experiencing financial problems, prompted Detective Vlaj to request a second interview with Ms. Baxter. (Docket # 26, at 2).
Ms. Baxter was still present on scene because the bank remained on lockdown at the request of bank executives, meaning that employees could not leave and customers could not enter; when approached, she voluntarily agreed to this second interview. (Docket # 26, at 2–3). The interview occurred at approximately 2:00 p.m., and took place in a different bank employee's office. Detective Vlaj invited a second Greendale Police Detective, Matthew Borkowski, to join him in conducting the interview. (Docket # 26, at 2). The office in which this second interview occurred was adjacent to the bank's lobby and had large windows and a door. (Docket # 26, at 2). Ms. Baxter testified at the evidentiary hearing that the door to the office was closed throughout the interview, but Detectives Vlaj and Borkowski provided contradictory testimony and Magistrate Goodstein accepted their testimony. (Docket # 26, at 2, 7). Detective Vlaj had interviewed several other bank employees in this room earlier in the day. (Docket # 26, at 2).
The detectives' interview of Ms. Baxter, however, turned somewhat accusatory. (Docket # 26, at 2–3). Detective Borkowski, in particular, addressed several accusations towards Ms. Baxter. (Docket # 26, at 2). He told Ms. Baxter that he believed she had something to do with the robbery because: (1) she had an abnormally large amount of money in her drawer at the time of the robbery; and (2) she was eating more food than is typical for someone who had recently been held at gunpoint. (Docket # 26, at 2). At the evidentiary hearing, Ms. Baxter testified that both detectives, and particularly Detective Borkowski, were very hostile in questioning her during this interview. (Docket # 26, at 2–3). The detectives disagreed, and testified that they never raised their voices during this interview. (Docket # 26, at 3). Nonetheless, Magistrate Goodstein largely accepted Ms. Baxter's testimony that the questioning was hostile and the detectives raised their voices. (Docket # 26, at 8). He did not, however, accept all of Ms. Baxter's assertions regarding the alleged high intensity of that hostility (such as Detective Borkowski's alleged yelling and other demonstrations of frustration). (Docket # 26, at 8). Ms. Baxter testified that this hostility caused her to become upset and start crying, because she believed she had no choice but to remain with the detectives and talk. (Docket # 26, at 2). The detectives, however, ultimately allowed her to leave after telling her they would be in contact with her. (Docket # 26, at 3).
2.3 Third Interview at Station
Both Ms. Baxter and the detectives left the bank. The detectives returned to the Greendale Police Department station. (Docket # 26, at 3). Several hours passed, and Detective Vlaj decided to contact Ms. Baxter to request that she come to the station for an additional interview. (Docket # 26, at 3). Detective Vlaj called Ms. Baxter and left a voicemail message for her, in which he told her that he would like her to come to the station to examine a picture. (Docket # 26, at 3). Ms. Baxter returned the call, at which time Detective Vlaj told her that the detectives would like to ask her more questions. (Docket # 26, at 3). She agreed to come to the station for additional questioning. (Docket # 26, at 3). She apparently got lost along the way, requiring her to make several additional calls to Detective Vlaj for directions, but eventually arrived at approximately 6:00 p.m. (Docket # 26, at 3).
When Ms. Baxter arrived, the detectives greeted her in the police station lobby. (Docket # 26, at 3). They informed her that they wished to question her about some discrepancies in her statements, and explained that they would like to question her in the booking portion of the station—the detectives actually testified that they called it the “lock-up” section—because it was the only area of the station with recording capabilities. (Docket # 26, at 3).1
The booking area is a secure facility where even officers do not carry guns. (Docket # 26, at 3). Thus, before taking Ms. Baxter to the booking area, the detectives asked her if she had any weapons, but they did not pat her down. (Docket # 26, at 3). Detective Vlaj testified that he advised Ms. Baxter that she was not under arrest, and Magistrate Goodstein accepted this testimony as true. (Docket # 26, at 3, 9).
After asking her whether she was holding any weapons, the detectives led Ms. Baxter to the booking area. (Docket # 26, at 4). To do so, the detectives were required to take Ms. Baxter on a circuitous route: first, they took her through a locked door adjoining the lobby; from there, they took her to an elevator and down one floor to the lower level; finally, they traveled down a hallway and passed through another locked door to enter the booking area. (Docket # 26, at 4). This final door closed and locked behind her, preventing her from leaving the booking area without the assent of the detectives. (Docket # 26, at 4).
Once in the booking area, the detectives took Ms. Baxter into a separate, smaller room, which Magistrate Goodstein referred to as the “booking room.” (Docket # 26, at 4). The booking room is a much smaller, concrete room, inside of which is only a pair of metal stools and a metal table. (Docket # 26, at 4). Ms. Baxter testified that the door to this room was closed during the interview, but the detectivestestified it was open (Docket # 26, at 4); Magistrate Goodstein did not decide which account he believed when he issued his report and recommendations.
The detectives began interviewing Ms. Baxter, and it immediately became clear that they suspected her of being an accomplice to the crime. (Docket # 26, at 4). Ms. Baxter described Detective Borkowski as being particularly aggressive and accusatory towards her, and Magistrate Goodstein concurred that Detective Borkowski's conduct was combative in his questioning. (Docket # 26, at 4, 8). Ms. Baxter, however, never requested a break in the interview. (Docket # 26, at 4). The interview progressed for approximately 45 minutes, at the end of which time Ms. Baxter began crying and said she had nothing further to say. (Docket # 26, at 4, 9). The detectives then walked Ms. Baxter out of the booking room and back through the police station, and allowed her to leave. (Docket # 26 at 4–5).
At no point during this interview (nor during her second interview at the bank) did the detectives provide Ms. Baxter with Miranda warnings. During those two latter interviews, she...
To continue reading
Request your trial