United States v. Bumgarner
| Decision Date | 20 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 2:21-cr-00086 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID LEE BUMGARNER, Defendant. |
The Court has reviewed the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Document 25) and the Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Document 26). The Court has also reviewed the Response of the United States of America to Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Document 38) and the Defendant's Reply to the Government's Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Document 39). In addition, the Court has considered the evidence and testimony presented during the suppression hearing held on December 2, 2021. For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the motion should be granted and the evidence in question should be suppressed.
On June 10, 2021, David Lee Bumgarner was charged in a single count indictment as a Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He filed a motion to suppress evidence on September 22, 2021 and the Court held a hearing on the motion on December 2 2021. Mr. Bumgarner seeks to have the following evidence suppressed: (1) “A SCCY, model CPX-2, 9mm pistol and its magazine which contained five rounds of ammunition” (2) “[t]he May 3, 2021, results of the FBI Laboratory's probabilistic genotyping analysis of a mixture of DNA taken from the grip of [the] pistol and compared with a known sample of DNA taken from the defendant”; and (3) “[a]ll photographs taken of the Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck and the seized SCCY 9mm pistol taken by the West Virginia State Police.” (Document 25).
At the suppression hearing, in addition to viewing the photographs relevant to the motion, the Court heard the testimony of the two law enforcement officers most intimately involved in the traffic stop and seizure of the firearm, namely, Trooper Zachary Holden and Patrolman Michael Hall. Based on the briefings, and the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the Court finds the following.
On June 6, 2020, the Defendant, David Lee Bumgarner, was driving a Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck in Chapmanville, West Virginia. Mr. Bumgarner had borrowed the truck from his neighbor, Keith McCloud. Patrolman Hall, of the Chapmanville Police Department, was patrolling in an unmarked car when he reportedly observed the driver of the truck, heading in the opposite direction, not wearing a seatbelt. Patrolman Hall switched on the light that was inside his unmarked vehicle and turned around to stop the defendant. At the suppression hearing, Patrolman Hall gave multiple conflicting responses regarding the time during which he followed Mr. Bumgarner. First, he claimed it took 30 seconds to one minute, next he stated that it was 20 seconds, he then testified again that it was approximately 30 seconds to one minute, and finally he claimed it was about a minute. He noted that the truck did not speed up or attempt to flee before pulling over.[1] Mr. Bumgarner pulled the truck into a large parking lot of a funeral home.[2] Patrolman Hall later reported that before pulling into the parking lot, he had observed the driver of the truck reaching around and behind the front passenger seat of the truck but noted that he did not inform anyone of this prior to the seizure of the gun that is the subject of the motion. He also testified that despite seeing the driver move, he could not recall whether the passenger made any movements.
Once stopped in the parking lot, Mr. Bumgarner waited in the truck for the officer. Patrolman Hall approached Mr. Bumgarner, and interacted with him and the passenger, Elizabeth Evans, for approximately two minutes. Despite Patrolman Hall's testimony that he had been trained that with respect to every suspect “[t]hey're always out to kill you, ”[3] he testified that the interaction took place without incident. During the interaction, Patrolman Hall did not ask Mr. Bumgarner if he was armed or if there was a gun in the vehicle, he did not ask about the supposed furtive movements he had observed, he did not inquire about Mr. Bumgarner's alleged failure to pull over promptly, he did not ask either Mr. Bumgarner or Ms. Evans to exit the truck nor did he perform a pat down search of either. Further, Patrolman Hall testified that he did not view anything that indicated either Mr. Bumgarner or Ms. Evans were actively engaged in any criminal activity aside from the moving violation justifying the stop. He returned to his vehicle to run Mr. Bumgarner and Ms. Evans' names through the central 911 system. He testified that he left them in the vehicle because he did not believe Mr. Bumgarner posed a safety risk.
A few minutes later, Trooper Holden, of the West Virginia State Police, arrived on the scene. At the time he arrived, Patrolman Hall had taken no steps to further restrain Mr. Bumgarner or Ms. Evans, either inside or outside the vehicle. The two officers tell conflicting stories of what happened next. Trooper Holden claims he initially arrived on the scene and spoke with Patrolman Hall to acquire the details of what had occurred. Patrolman Hall denies such a discussion took place prior to Trooper Holden's contact with Mr. Bumgarner. Trooper Holden cited details which he claims he obtained from Patrolman Hall, prior to approaching Mr. Bumgarner, as justification for his actions. He stated that he relied on Patrolman Hall's purported statements to him about the length of time it took Mr. Bumgarner to pull over, and the motions he made while driving. In addition to denying the conversation occurred, as Trooper Holden had claimed, Patrolman Hall confirmed that he had not shared any of the details over the radio.
Trooper Holden approached the truck and asked Mr. Bumgarner to step out. He claimed a familiarity with Mr. Bumgarner, but it was based almost exclusively on information he received from other officers. He testified that he knew Mr. Bumgarner had a history of fleeing the scene or becoming combative with officers.[4] When Mr. Bumgarner stepped out of the truck, he gave no indication that he was attempting to flee. Trooper Holden claims he patted Mr. Bumgarner down but no gun was found. Mr. Bumgarner was then placed in handcuffs, taken to Trooper Holden's vehicle, and locked in the back seat.
With Mr. Bumgarner detained in the back seat, Trooper Holden returned to the truck to remove Ms. Evans. He claims that upon approaching the vehicle, he saw orange syringe caps on the floor of the truck. However, no photographs were taken of the caps, and there was no testimony that caps were kept as evidence.[5] Upon removing Ms. Evans from the truck and Patrolman Hall taking her away from it, Trooper Holden claimed he saw a firearm in plain view under the front passenger seat.
The Chevrolet S-10 truck had two seats in the front cabin. Trooper Holden, at the time he claimed to see the gun, was standing upright outside the vehicle beside the passenger side rearview mirror. From that vantage point, he claims he could see the firearm butt and magazine, despite it being confined entirely under the seat, out of the sunlight, and at approximately knee height or below.[6] Although he claimed that he was able to see the gun while standing straight up and without bending into the vehicle, he only took photographs of the gun from inside the truck, and acknowledged he needed to bend down and enter the truck to obtain this photo:
(Image Omitted)
(Document 25-2). This photograph, the only one depicting where the firearm was allegedly positioned before the officer moved it, shows the butt of the gun hidden in a dark area completely under the passenger seat. While Trooper Holden took numerous photographs that day, none illustrate his view from outside the truck.[7] Initially, in looking at the photograph, Trooper Holden claimed he could not testify as to whether it was fully under the seat or whether any part of the firearm was sticking out. Despite this assertion, he claimed with certainty that the gun was in plain view. Upon further questioning, he ultimately acknowledged that the firearm, as the photograph he was viewing depicts, was, in fact, under the seat. Additionally, he later admitted that in his report from that day, he had described the gun as concealed underneath the seat.
When questioned, Patrolman Hall testified that he did not recall whether he ever heard from central 911 regarding Mr. Bumgarner's background check and eligibility to drive, much less whether he obtained that information before the seizure. Further, while they ultimately did find a syringe in Ms. Evans' purse, Patrolman Hall acknowledged that this was found after both passengers were out of the car, and after the gun had been seized.
When deciding a motion to suppress, the district court may make findings of fact and conclusions of law. United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 2005). On a motion to suppress, the burden of proof is on the party who seeks to suppress the evidence. United States v. Dickerson, 655 F.2d 559, 561 (4th Cir. 1981). However, once the defendant establishes a proper basis for his motion to suppress, the burden shifts to the government to prove the admissibility of the challenged evidence by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 177 n.14 (1974).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches or seizures. U.S. Const amend. IV. Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable and violative of the Fourth Amendment, subject to limited...
To continue reading
Request your trial