United States v. Bryant
| Decision Date | 21 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:18-cr-00054-02 KGB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. CAMERON A. BRYANT DEFENDANT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Before the Court are four motions to suppress filed by defendant Cameron A. Bryant (Dkt. Nos. 113, 145, 146, 147). The United States responded to the motions (Dkt. Nos. 114, 148). For the following reasons, the Court denies each motion to suppress filed by Mr. Bryant.
Mr. Bryant challenges the evidence found in a "trash pull" on February 6, 2018, and all evidence seized as a result of the execution of a search warrant on February 16, 2018, at #3 Treasure Hill Circle (Dkt. No. 113, at 3). Mr. Bryant specifically challenges the sufficiency of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for search warrant, which United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere granted (Dkt. No. 113, at 2-3). He argues, in pertinent part, "[t]he issuing magistrate was simply incorrect in determining that the affidavit supplied sufficient information to form probable cause, because there is no information that anyone from #3 Treasure Hill Circle left the trash receptacle near the end of the driveway, nor is there any information that the mail addressed to #3 Treasure Hill Circle was found in a white trash bag containing any of the alleged contraband." (Dkt. No. 113, at 3).
Mr. Bryant maintains that (Dkt. No. 113, at 1). Mr. Bryant argues that, based on the affidavit supplied by Officer Cardarious Walker, "law enforcement did not observe the trash receptacle being placed near the end of the driveway[,] and there is no indication from the affidavit that the alleged baggies with methamphetamine residue, green leafy substance, and Hornaday ammunition box were located in the same bag as the one piece of mail addressed to #3 Treasure Hill Circle." (Dkt. No. 113, at 2). Further, Mr. Bryant argues that the affidavit claims that the items mentioned were found in three of the four white trash bags and that nothing indicates the green leafy substance was tested for or confirmed to be marijuana (Id.).
The United States, in its response, submits Officer Walker's affidavit submitted to Judge Deere in support of the application for warrant for review by this Court. In his affidavit, Officer Walker describes controlled buys of controlled substances from one of Mr. Bryant's co-defendants, Marine Thompson, that occurred prior to the trash pull challenged by Mr. Bryant (Dkt. No. 114-1, ¶¶ 9-14). Officer Walker also describes, as to the controlled buy on January 4, 2018, that agents followed Mr. Thompson to #3 Treasure Hill Circle during the controlled buy in response to a request made of Mr. Thompson to purchase two more ounces of the controlled substance (Id., ¶¶ 14-15). After traveling to the home on Treasure Hill Circle, Mr. Thompson returned to the scene of the controlled buy with additional quantities of the controlled substance. Mr. Thompson also returned to the home at #3 Treasure Hill Circle after the transaction.
Officer Walker also explained that, on February 6, 2018, agents (Dkt. No. 114-1, ¶ 16). Officer Walker affirmed that the listed items "were located inside the three trash bags." (Id.).
The Fourth Amendment protects "[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. The "warrantless search and seizure of the garbage bags left at the curb outside of the [] house would violate the Fourth amendment only if respondents manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable." California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 39 (1988). "When moving to suppress evidence on the basis of an alleged unreasonable search, the defendant has the burden of showing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area to be searched." United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 842 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. James, 534 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2008)).
It is well established that there is no reasonable "expectation of privacy in trash left for collection in an area accessible to the public." 486 U.S. at 41. In United States v. Thompson, 881 F.3d 629, 631-32 (8th Cir. 2018), defendant Thompson challenged a trash pull and argued that, because the trash was left in a container next to his garage—rather than on a street curb, the trash was within the curtilage of his home and that he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that, assuming the trash was within the curtilage of Mr. Thompson's home, "the proper focus under Greenwood [remains] whether the garbage was readily accessible to the public so as to render any expectation of privacy objectively unreasonable." Thompson, 881 F.3d at 631-32 (quoting United States v. Comeaux, 955 F.2d 586, 589 (8th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court in Thompson determined, and the Eighth Circuit agreed, that Mr. Thompson's trash was readily accessible to the public, the garbage container was easily visiblefrom the street, and there were no barriers preventing access to the container or its contents. The trash was placed in a location from which the garbage collectors regularly collected it at the regularly-scheduled time of collection, suggesting it was placed there "for the express purpose of having strangers take it." Thompson, 881 F.3d at 631-32 (quoting Greenwood, 486 U.S. at 40-41). The court determined that "strangers might 'sort[ ] through [the] trash or permit[ ] others, such as the police, to do so.'" Thompson, 881 F.3d at 631-32 (quoting Greenwood, 486 U.S. at 40). Based on these facts, the court determined that Thompson had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash, resulting in the denial of the motion to suppress.
Here, Officer Walker in his affidavit states, "[t]he receptacle was located at the end of the driveway near the street waiting for pickup." (Dkt. No. 114-1, ¶ 16). As a result, the Court determines Mr. Bryant had no subjective expectation of privacy in the garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable.
Further, based on United States v. Williams, 669 F.3d 903, 905 (8th Cir. 2012), the Court determines that it need not conduct a hearing to rule on Mr. Bryant's pending motion to suppress related to the trash pull and #3 Treasure Hill Circle. The Franks standard governs whether this Court should conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on a pending motion to suppress. Under that standard:
[t]here is, of course, a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant. To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof.
United States v. Mims, 812 F.2d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978)).
In United States v. Williams, 669 F.3d at 905, the only evidence presented to the district court regarding the location of the trash was Detective Miller's statement in his affidavit that he "retrieved three bags of trash that had been left at the curb for pick-up by a trash company " (emphasis added). The Eighth Circuit acknowledged that, in the brief in support of the motion to suppress, defendant Williams' counsel contended that "the officers illegally retrieved three trash bags from the driveway of the residence" (emphasis added). The court determined that, to the extent defendant Williams contended that the trash actually was not at the curb as stated in the affidavit, defendant Williams was challenging the factual accuracy of the affidavit. Id. at 905. The court concluded that, because defendant Williams proffered no affidavit or other evidence indicating that the trash was not at the curb, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing when denying the motion to suppress.
For these reasons, the Court denies without a hearing Mr. Bryant's motion to suppress based on his challenge to the trash pull.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. As a result, the Fourth Amendment establishes two requirements: (1) particularity and (2) probable cause. United States v. Swift, 720 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1055 (E.D. Ark. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Mr. Bryant maintains that Officer Walker's affidavit does not sufficiently establish probable cause to search #3 Treasure Hill Circle.
Officer Walker's affidavit describes the controlled buy on January 4, 2018, and that agents followed Mr. Thompson to #3 Treasure Hill Circle during the controlled buy in response to arequest made of Mr. Thompson to purchase two more ounces of the controlled substance. After traveling to the home on Treasure Hill Circle, Mr. Thompson returned to the scene of the controlled buy with additional quantities of the controlled substance. Mr. Thompson also...
To continue reading
Request your trial