ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant Bradley Beauchamp's Motion to Suppress All Evidence from the Traffic Stop by Florida Highway Patrol on March 12, 2016, Intercepted Oral Communications and from the Search of a Cosmetics Case Found in the Trunk of the Vehicle (Doc. No. 1237), the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") recommending this Court DENY Defendant's motion to suppress (Doc. No. 1678), and Defendant's objections to the M&R (Doc. No. 1735). After reviewing the relevant memoranda, recommendation, and objections, the Court hereby OVERULES Defendant's objections (Doc. No. 1735), ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's M&R (Doc. No. 1678), and DENIES Defendant's motion to suppress (Doc. No. 1237).
A district court may refer a motion to suppress to a magistrate judge for a recommendation pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b)(1). If a party timely files "specific written objections" to the proposed recommendations, the "district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation." Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2)-(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636. The court does not perform a de novo review where a party makes only "general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for "clear error," and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). Upon careful review of the record, "the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The M&R summarizes the factual background and findings based on the evidence presented relevant to the instant motion:
Defendant Beauchamp is charged with one count of participating in a racketeering conspiracy in furtherance of the Nine Trey Gangster "Hood" of the United Blood Nation and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud based upon an alleged scheme to create fraudulent and cloned credit cards and gift cards. During the initial hearing, the Court heard testimony from Florida Highway Patrol Troopers Nathaniel Cabe and Brian Lundy. At the subsequent hearing, the Court heard testimony from Trooper Cabe.
On March 12, 2016, Trooper Cabe parked his marked vehicle in the median of Interstate Highway 10 in Madison County Florida. Trooper Cabe was assigned to the Criminal Interdiction Unit. At approximately 10:38 am, Cabe observed a white Chrysler 200 travelling east on the highway. Cabe ran the tag and it came back to a rental car owned by Enterprise. Based upon his training and experience, Cabe believed that the car's tinted windows were in violation of Florida law. He was also aware that rental cars do not come equipped with tinted windows. He could not see inside the vehicle as it travelled down the interstate which indicated to him that it was in violation of the law.
Cabe initiated a traffic stop based upon the tinted window violation. His audio and video recording equipment was activated when he turned on his lights to execute the traffic stop. He approached the car from the passenger side and directed the occupants to roll down the windows. He immediately detected a strong odor ofmarijuana coming from inside the car. Defendant was the driver. Co-Defendant Barrington Lattibeaudiere was the front passenger and co-Defendant Rashaad Sattar was in the back seat. Cabe advised the Defendant that the stop was based upon a violation for tinted windows and that he now smelled marijuana. Defendant stated that Lattibeaudiere had been smoking a cigarette. Cabe stated that it was not cigarette smoke that he smelled but raw marijuana.
Trooper Lundy arrived to assist Cabe. Cabe ordered the occupants out of the car one by one. Trooper Lundy patted down Sattar and placed him in the rear of Cabe's vehicle. Cabe patted down Lattibeaudiere, placed him in handcuffs, and seated him on the ground. Lundy patted down the Defendant and located a baggie containing five grams of suspected marijuana in his left jacket pocket. Lundy also located a gift card in Defendant's right jacket pocket. Defendant was placed in the rear of Cabe's vehicle along with Sattar.
Once the occupants were out of the car and secured, Trooper Lundy measured the window tint on the Chrysler using a department issued Laser Labs model 100 tint meter. The windows measured 26 percent light transmittance as opposed to the 28 percent mandated by Florida law.
Cabe and Lundy then proceeded to search the interior of the Chrysler based upon the strong odor of marijuana. Marijuana residue was visible throughout the passenger compartment. Fourteen gift cards and credit cards were concealed inside the car's owner manual located in the glove compartment. This spiked the troopers' interest in possible credit card fraud offenses. They found 124 gifts cards in a Dre Beats bag in the vehicle. Four fraudulent credit cards were found in a wallet inside the vehicle. The troopers also seized a fraudulent Florida driver's license.
The troopers located a black hard case with combination lock in the trunk. The case was locked. The troopers asked the occupants if they knew anything about the case. Defendant told the troopers that the locked case belonged to a female who was travelling ahead of them in another car. Defendant further stated that the case contained that female's make up. Cabe asked Defendant if he would mind calling her to see if she would consent to a search of the case. Cabe handed him his phone and shut the patrol car door to let him make the call. Defendant never made the call.
Trooper Lundy's canine was shown the case and failed to alert. Trooper Cabe then placed a call to Judge Wesley R. Douglas to request a search warrant for the case. Cabe completed two paragraphs of the search warrant stating the facts to support probable cause and related them to Judge Douglas by phone. He also scanned the completed search warrant and emailed it to Judge Douglas. Judge Douglas swore Cabe over the phone, issued the search warrant, and emailed it to the trooper around 1:14 p.m. The troopers broke open the case and discovered a credit card embossing machine, encoder scanner, computer speaker and a bottle of alcohol.
The three suspects were arrested and the Chrysler was inventoried and towed. The audio and video system continued to record inside Trooper Cabe's vehicle while Defendant and Sattar were confined in the back seat. Incriminating statements by both suspects were recorded.
On December 22, 2015, the Inspector General for the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles sustained two complaints made against Trooper Cabe. The Inspector General determined that Cabe submitted false documentation regarding his permanent residence and was residing more than thirty miles from his duty station in violation of departmental regulations. As a result, Cabe was suspended for twenty-four hours. On May 5, 2013, Cabe received a written reprimand for engaging in the unauthorized pursuit of a vehicle. On August 1, 2012, he received an oral reprimand for failing to turn in evidence at the end of his shift. Cabe had seized a quantity of drugs during an arrest. While cleaning out his vehicle at his residence, he found one of the suspect pills in the vehicle's trash receptacle. The Court has considered all of these matters as they bear on Trooper Cabe's credibility.
(Doc. No. 1678, pp. 2-5).
Defendant timely filed his Objection to the M&R (Doc. No. 1735) on June 28, 2018. The Court has carefully reviewed the recommendation, objection, and relevant memorandum and finds the issues ripe for de novo review.
Defendant objects to the M&R, requesting the Court suppress all evidence recovered during or derived from the traffic stop and from the execution of the warrant to search the black case found in the trunk of the vehicle, and to suppress the police car recordings of the Defendant. (Doc. No. 1735, p. 9). In the alternative, Defendant requests the Court conduct a de novo hearing to allow Defendant the opportunity to again cross examine Cabe and make further credibility determinations. Id.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV."When a police officer stops an automobile and detains the occupants briefly, the stop amounts to a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498, 506 (4th Cir.2011) (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996)). "[T]he underlying command of the Fourth Amendment is always that searches and seizures be reasonable." Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 931 (1995); see also Whren, 517 U.S. at 810 ("An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be 'unreasonable' under the circumstances.").
Defendant objects to the M&R's conclusion that Defendant's illegally tinted windows gave Cabe an objectively reasonable basis for initiating a traffic stop. Defendant further contends a de novo hearing is necessary because the Magistrate Judge limited his opportunity to cross examine Cabe beyond the scope of Cabe's employment misconduct at the second hearing.
"As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred." Whren, 517 U.S. at 810. Probable cause exists...
