United States v. Bullock

• Decision Date: 21 August 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 20-cr-2018-CJW
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DESHAUN ANTHONY BULLOCK, JR., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DESHAUN ANTHONY BULLOCK, JR., Defendant.

Case No. 20-cr-2018-CJW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION

August 21, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 2

II. FINDINGS OF FACT ...................................................................... 3

III. DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 10

A. Whether Officers Unnecessarily Prolonged the Investigative Stop ....... 10

1. The Parties' Arguments .................................................. 10

2. Analysis ..................................................................... 11

a. Whether the Dog Sniff Unreasonably Extended the Duration of the Traffic Stop ................................................ 18

b. Whether Reasonable Suspicion Justified the Continued Duration of the Traffic Stop to Investigate Unrelated Criminal Activity .................................................. 20

B. Whether the Search of Defendant's Residence Violated the Fourth Amendment ......................................................................... 29

1. The Affidavit in Support of the Warrant .............................. 29

2. Relevant Law ............................................................... 35

3. The Parties' Arguments .................................................. 38

4. Substantial evidence in the record supported issuance of the warrant ...................................................................... 38

5. The Leon good faith exception applies to the warrant ............. 40

6. Even when the evidence is redacted from the affidavit, substantial evidence in the record still supports issuance of the warrant ..... 45

IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 51

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 19, 2020, the Grand Jury charged Defendant with two counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Drug User in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3) and one count of False Statement During Purchase of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(a)(1)(A). (Doc. 2.) The charges arose from a traffic stop and an open-air canine sniff of Defendant's vehicle that occurred on March 15, 2019.

The matter before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress Traffic Stop and Subsequent Evidence. (Doc. 23.) The Government timely filed a resistance. (Doc. 25.) The Honorable Charles J. Williams, United States District Court Judge, referred this motion to me for a Report and Recommendation.

I held a hearing on Wednesday, August 5, 2020. (Doc. 26.) The Government called two witnesses: Officer Jordan Ehlers and Officer Matthew Woodward, both of the Waterloo Police Department. Both officers are graduates of the Iowa Law EnforcementAcademy and have taken additional law enforcement training; have been police officers since 2012; and have been with the Waterloo Police Department since 2016 and 2014, respectively. Both officers are members of the Violent Crime Apprehension Team ("VCAT"), which investigates gun violence in the city of Waterloo. (Ehlers Hr'g Test.)¹ Government's Exhibits 1-9 were admitted without objection. Defendant called no witnesses and proffered no evidence. For the following reasons, I respectfully recommend that the District Court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress Traffic Stop and Subsequent Evidence.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

Just after midnight on March 15, 2019 ("March 15"), Officers Ehlers and Woodward were patrolling the 500 block of Broadway Street in Waterloo, Iowa in their police vehicle. (Ehlers & Woodward Hr'g Test.) Officer Ehlers was driving below the 35-miles-per-hour speed limit. He identified the area as a "high crime" block. According to Officer Woodward, "A lot of our shootings and large fights, disorderlies, occur in that 500 block, particularly the 508 Broadway, which is the Prime Mart." (Woodward Hr'g Test.) Officer Woodward testified that Prime Mart Liquor is a "hot spot" for crime: "weapons violations and disorderlies. . . . simple shoplifting to fights to felon possession, a lot of gun cases, a lot of dope cases ranging from simple possession to gun charges. . . . Pretty much everything happens there." (Id.) Officer Ehlers testified that officers report the odor of marijuana emanates from the store.

Although neither officer recalls if they were going north or south on Broadway Street, both officers testified that at approximately 12:30 a.m., they observed two vehicles stopped next to each other in the Prime Mart parking lot. (Ehlers & WoodwardHr'g Test.) Neither officer can recall exactly where the cars were parked. One of the vehicles was a Chevrolet Malibu that was later determined to be Defendant's. Someone exited the back seat of another vehicle and approached the driver's side of the Malibu and then returned to the other vehicle. The entire series of events took a few seconds. (Woodward Hr'g Test.) Neither officer could see what, if anything transpired at the side of the Malibu because the person who approached the Malibu was obstructing their view. However, in both officers' training and experience, such quick interactions are consistent with drug activity. (Ehlers & Woodward Hr'g Test.) Officer Ehlers testified that this type of activity has led to multiple drug seizures and arrests.²

When this interaction was over, Officers Ehlers and Woodward drove around the block, came back to the same area of the 500 block of Broadway, and saw the Malibu pull out of the parking lot. The officers do not know if any other similar interactions or further interaction with the person in the Malibu occurred. (Woodward Hr'g Test.) The officers followed the Malibu. While they were following the Malibu, Officer Woodward ran the vehicle's plates and discovered the vehicle belonged to Defendant. (Ehlers & Woodward Hr'g Test.)

Both officers were familiar with Defendant. Officer Ehlers knew Defendant from a 2017 shooting incident because he was assigned to locate Defendant when a warrant was issued for his arrest. (Ehlers Hr'g Test.) In conjunction with the investigation of that case, Officer Ehlers also reviewed reports of an executed search warrant and saw that multiple clear plastic baggies containing white residue consistent with cocaine and a small amount of marijuana had been located in Defendant's residence. (Id.) Officer Woodward was dispatched to the scene of the 2017 shooting and assisted in the search of Defendant's residence in conjunction with the investigation into the shooting.(Woodward Hr'g Test.) That search yielded marijuana and cocaine. (Id.) Officer Woodward also knew that Defendant had once been a member of the Cream Team, a criminal group, which is what the Waterloo Police Department calls gangs. The Cream Team was no longer active in 2019, having disbanded before 2016. (Id.) When the group was active, its criminal activities included possession of illegal narcotics, selling illegal narcotics, and "weapon-related violations." (Id.)

The officers followed Defendant less than a quarter-of-a-mile before they noticed Defendant's third brake light, the one in the center of the rear window, was not operational. (Ehlers & Woodard Hr'g Test.) Officer Woodward once had the same Malibu as Defendant and knew the car was equipped with a third brake light. (Woodward Hr'g Test.) The officers conducted a traffic stop because driving with a missing or inoperable third tail light was a violation of Iowa Code Section 321.387.³ Officer Ehlers approached the driver's side window of the vehicle. Defendant had his driver's license and permit to carry a concealed weapon ready to present to the officer. Upon seeing the permit to carry, Officer Ehlers asked if Defendant had "it" on him. (Gov. Ex. 3 at 00:14.) Defendant responded, "A yeah, I got [inaudible]. It's, a, right here," picked a handgun up from the passenger seat, and placed it on the dashboard. (Id. at 00:17; Ehlers & Woodard Hr'g Test.) Officer Woodward approached the vehicle on the passenger side and arrived at the front passenger-side window just as Officer Ehlers asked, "Do you have it on you?" As soon as Officer Woodward got to the side of the Malibu, he saw Defendant pick up the gun, and said to Defendant, "Put it down, put it down." (Gov. Ex. 4 at 0:35; Woodward Hr'g Test.) Although it is normal practice in a traffic stop to ask for license, registration, and proof of insurance (Ehlers & Woodard Hr'g Test.),Officer Ehlers did not initially ask for proof of insurance or registration when he approached the vehicle.

Defendant requested to see the brake light that was out. When Defendant exited the Malibu and walked to the rear of the vehicle, Officer Ehlers leaned into the vehicle and put his foot on the brake pedal so Defendant could see the light was not working. Officer Ehlers did not smell marijuana when he leaned into the vehicle. Officer Ehlers then returned to the squad car while Defendant waited outside at the rear of the vehicle with Officer Woodward.⁴

In the squad car, Officer Ehlers radioed Dispatch a request for a driver's license and warrant check on Defendant. (Gov. Ex. 3 at 2:34; Ehlers Hr'g Test.) Officer Ehlers then accessed a program called Shieldware, which allowed him to obtain Defendant's criminal history for the Waterloo and Blackhawk County area. Officer Ehlers also called Dispatch and requested a check of Defendant's weapons permit. These checks are "the type of activities" Officer Ehlers does at every traffic stop. (Ehlers Hr'g Test.) Dispatch responded that Defendant had a valid driver's license, a valid weapons permit, and no warrants. Officer Ehlers then requested that Dispatch run a "Triple I" on Defendant. Officer Ehlers's familiarity with the 2017 shooting incident made him "extremely concerned" there had been an error regarding the validity of Defendant's weapons permit...