United States v. Bryant
| Decision Date | 06 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 5:21-cr-00028-TES-CHW-1 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JONATHAN BRYANT, Defendant |
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Our Constitution doesn't forbid all searches and seizures against the inestimable right of personal security; it only guards against those that are unreasonable. Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968).
Since 1968, virtually every law student and law enforcement officer has studied Terry v. Ohio, easily one of the most important and recognizable Fourth Amendment cases ever authored. In Terry, the United States Supreme Court articulated the principle that a law enforcement officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment if he conducts a limited search of a citizen “in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.” Id. at 30-31. However, this narrowly drawn authority permitting a reasonable search for weapons must be “coupled with a highly developed system of judicial controls to enforce upon the agents of the State the commands of the Constitution.” Id. at 11, 27. Like most Fourth Amendment cases, this case requires the Court to balance the seemingly incompatible right of law enforcement officers to search citizens for their own protection against citizens' rights to be free from unreasonable searches.
Pulling from the text of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has affirmed over and over that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness.'” Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60 (2014); Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 381 (2014); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). And, in the Fourth Amendment arena “[r]easonableness” demands “a balance between the public interest and [an] individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law [enforcement] officers.” Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977). The performance of police work, by its very nature, often interferes with an individual's personal security. However, when police interference “trenches upon personal security without . . . objective evidentiary justification .... it must be condemned by the judiciary and its fruits must be excluded from evidence in criminal trials.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 15.
On June 9, 2021, the Grand Jury charged Defendant Jonathan Bryant with one count of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). [Doc. 1, p. 1]. In his Particularized Motion to Suppress and Dismiss [Doc. 27], Defendant Bryant argues that but for an illegal search, a police officer wouldn't have found a pistol tucked into the waistline of his pants. So, he wants to make sure that jurors never see or hear about it.
In less than two pages of text, the Government rather blandly argues-almost exclusively-that officer safety permitted the search of Defendant Bryant. [Doc. 33, pp. 3-5]. On December 7, 2021, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant Bryant's suppression motion where the Government called a single witness: Corporal Travis Wade Carlisle from the Bibb County Sheriff's Office. The parties also offered two body camera videos as exhibits.[1] Here is what the evidence shows.
Suffice it to say, the facts of this case are unique.
A little after midnight on December 11, 2020, Deputy Carlisle observed two westbound vehicles en route from Brunswick to Atlanta, Georgia, traveling 14 miles per hour over the posted speed limit on Interstate 16. Emily Baker drove the lead vehicle, a Chrysler owned by her husband, Kendrick Green, and the second vehicle, a Mercedes-Benz, held two passengers-the driver, Baker's husband, and its owner, Defendant Bryant. Carlisle testified that he initiated a traffic stop on the Chrysler for speeding. And although Carlisle was clear that he did not simultaneously stop the Mercedes or even consider himself to have stopped the Mercedes, he testified that it nonetheless pulled over in front of the stopped Chrysler.
At the very beginning of the traffic stop, Grube's Body Cam shows Carlisle standing just outside of the driver-side door of the Chrysler, speaking to Baker who was sitting in its driver seat. Carlisle testified that Baker told him that her husband was driving the Mercedes because Defendant Bryant was tired.[2] During this initial interaction, Carlisle also testified that he smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the Chrysler. Looking at Grube's Body Cam, this initial interaction between Carlisle and Baker lasted for just over a minute, then Carlisle started walking towards the Mercedes. Green, still seated in the driver seat of the Mercedes, had opened the driver door, and for a little over two minutes, Carlisle stood just beside it while he first spoke with Green and Defendant Bryant.[3]
On his way back to his patrol car, Carlisle passed Baker who was still seated in the Chrysler and told her, “I'll be right back, okay.” Then Carlisle informed Deputy Grube that the Chrysler “smells like weed.” Relying on the suspected presence of marijuana, Carlisle ordered Baker out of the Chrysler and told her that he was going to “check” the Chrysler “real quick.” Before starting his search, Carlisle asked Baker if she had any bags or luggage in the Chrysler, and Baker responded, “Yeah, in the trunk.”
Consistent with Carlisle's testimony, Grube's Body Cam shows that Carlisle removed luggage from the trunk of the Chrysler and uncovered an AR-style rifle in the trunk's spare tire compartment. Then, in the midst of searching the backseat area of the Chrysler, Carlisle found a handgun, along with what he suspected to be marijuana and several different types of controlled substances in a hidden compartment in the center console. Leaving the handgun and the suspected marijuana and controlled substances in the backseat area of the Chrysler, Carlisle then paused his search, walked towards Baker, and placed her in handcuffs.
“Can you tell me what's going on?” Baker asked.
Carlisle replied, Before asking Baker whether she had “anything on [her], ” Carlisle told Grube that other police officers were on their way to the scene. With Baker secured in handcuffs, Carlisle resumed his search of the backseat of the Chrysler. As he searched, Carlisle radioed to dispatch, “I've got one 10-26'ed.”[4]
Dispatch radioed back, “10-4, ” and Carlisle said, “For now.”
Moments later, Carlisle emerged from the backseat of the Chrysler holding the handgun and walked to his patrol car. Seated in his patrol car with the handgun, Carlisle (obviously referring to Green and Defendant Bryant) said to Grube, “They're gonna be 26-ed, too.”
Grube, acknowledging Carlisle's comment said, “Alright, ” but he also asked whether he needed to “hold off until” the other police officers arrived on the scene.
“Yeah, ” Carlisle answered.
Again, Baker-this time to Grube-asked, “Can you tell me what's going on?” Grube assured Baker that Carlisle would speak with her, and he then followed Carlisle to the Chrysler. Once Carlisle updated Grube on what he found in the backseat area of the Chrysler, Carlisle reached back in and pulled out two separate plastic bags that contained the suspected marijuana and controlled substances. After he placed the plastic bags in his patrol car, Carlisle (again referring to Green and Defendant Bryant) said to Grube, “I'm surprised they haven't driven off yet.”
“I'm surprised, too, ” Grube replied.
For a second time, Baker asked Carlisle, “Sir, can you tell me what's going on?”[5]In response, Carlisle says,
“Correct, ” Baker admitted.
“So, that's why we're searching it, alright” Carlisle continued.
“One of them is mine, and it's in my name, ” Baker informed Carlisle. However, after a little further explanation, Carlisle placed Baker under arrest and informed her of the charges for which she was being arrested.
“Are you gonna go talk to him?” Baker asked, presumably referring to her husband.
Carlisle said,
Baker questioned.
“‘Cause y'all are all in on it, ” Carlisle told her.
Baker wanted to know.
“I mean, you weren't transporting dope by yourself, ” Carlisle added.
At the suppression hearing, Carlisle elaborated on the events during the traffic stop of the Chrysler. Specifically, Carlisle confirmed that he suspected that Baker, Green, and Defendant Bryant all had knowledge of the controlled substances found in the Chrysler and that he suspected that all three of them “were knowingly involved in the transportation of either guns or drugs.” With just over eight years of employment with the Bibb County Sheriff's Office, Carlisle testified that-based on “more than a hunch”-he had this suspicion because they were following each other, because Baker admitted that her husband (before he started driving the Mercedes) had previously been in the Chrysler, and because the hidden compartment inside the Chrysler was common with smuggling contraband.
After telling Baker his suspicions about her, Green, and Defendant Bryant “transporting dope, ” Carlisle approached another...
To continue reading
Request your trial