United States v. Cain

• Decision Date: 12 August 2021
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL 20-356
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. KENDRE CAIN, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. KENDRE CAIN, Defendant

CRIMINAL No. 20-356

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

August 12, 2021

OPINION

Robert J. Colville, United States District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Kendre Cain's Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 31). Mr. Cain moved to suppress all cell phone evidence, all evidence derived from his traffic stop arrest and search, the seizure and search of the vehicle he was driving at the time of his arrest, as well as the seizure of the cell phones located within the vehicle.

For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2020, a federal grand jury returned a multi-count Indictment against Defendant Kendre Cain. (ECF No. 1). Mr. Cain is charged at Count 1 of the Indictment with possession with intent to distribute a quantity of fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841 (b)(1), at Count 2 of the Indictment with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), at Count 3 of the Indictment with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(2), and at Count 4 of the Indictment with possession of a firearms with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k).

Mr. Cain moved to suppress the evidence against him arising from an incident on May 20, 2020 when he was pulled over by police and searched. Mr. Cain also submitted two exhibits in support of his Motion: a transcript of a preliminary hearing held in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dated August 26, 2020 and the application and authorization of a search warrant dated June 25, 2020. (ECF Nos. 32-1, 32-2.)

The Government opposed the motion to suppress in an omnibus response to all pretrial motions (ECF No. 35) and included exhibits thereto. These exhibits included: 1) the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Investigative Report dated May 20, 2020, which, inter alia, describes the evidence obtained as a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber pistol with obliterated serial number, a magazine and ammunition, 18 bundles of heroin, $1, 951 in currency, a baggie of marijuana, an iPhone, and an Alcatel Phone (ECF No. 35-1); 2) Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”) Bureau of Driver Licensing Certified Driver History of Mr. Cain, dated March 3, 2021^[1] (ECF No. 35-2); 3) PennDOT Driver License Information of Mr. Cain dated March 3, 2021 which indicates as “Suspension Information” that his driver's license is “revoked, suspended, cancelled or recalled” (ECF No. 35-3); 4) Allegheny County Office of Medical Examiner Report of Laboratory Findings dated August 10, 2020 indicating that seventy six white stamp bags stamped “PINK PANTHER” tested positive as fentanyl and forty white stamp bags stamped “A” tested positive as fentanyl (ECF No. 35-4); 5) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Allegheny Application for Search Warrant (signed by Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Officer Joshua Anderson) and Authorization dated June 25, 2020, in which the application to search the iPhone and Alcatel Phone was authorized on June 26, 2021 (ECF No. 35-5).

The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Suppress. (ECF No. 39).^[2] Detective Joshua Anderson testified for the Government, and the Government also introduced multiple documents into evidence: the map of Skyline Terrace neighborhood of Pittsburgh, defendant's certified driver history, PennDOT's driver's information, and the search warrant for cellphones. Defendant submitted four photographic exhibits, specifically photographs of the unmarked police vehicle (blue Chevrolet Impala), two photographs of Defendant's arrest on May 20, 2020, and the photograph of marijuana recovered at the time of Mr. Cain's arrest.

At the end of the evidentiary hearing, the evidentiary record for the suppression motions was deemed complete.

Following the hearing, counsel for Mr. Cain filed a post-hearing brief in support of his motion (ECF No. 43), and counsel for the Government filed a post-hearing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (ECF No. 42). Neither party elected to file a response in opposition. The matter is now ripe for disposition.

II. FACTUAL FINDINGS

“On a motion to suppress evidence, the trial judge sits as the finder of fact.” United Statesv. France, 414 F.Supp.3d 747, 750 (W.D. Pa. 2019) (citing United States v. Harris, 884 F.Supp.2d 383, 387 n.2 (W.D. Pa. 2012)). Accordingly, a district court judge assesses the credibility of witnesses, weighs the evidence, and draws any appropriate conclusions and inferences from the evidence. Id.

As noted supra, the Government called a single witness to testify at the suppression hearing: Pittsburgh Police Detective Joshua Anderson, who was involved in the arrest of Mr. Cain on May 20, 2020. He testified about the arrest and the events leading up to the arrest. His testimony, coupled with the documentary evidence, provides the factual record that the Court considers when deciding the Defendant's Motion.

Based on the Court's estimation and experience, coupled with the Court's personal observation of Detective Anderson's testimony and demeanor as a witness, and in light of the Court's consideration of his testimony in the context of all of the admissible evidence before the Court, the Court finds and concludes, broadly, that he testified credibly. Defense counsel's questioning of the detective revealed some weaknesses in his testimony that causes the Court to question the weight given to certain portions of his testimony, more specifically identified herein below.

Detective Anderson, who at the time of the incident in question had been working for the City of Pittsburgh Police for approximately five years, was patrolling the Hill District section of Pittsburgh on the day in question. He described his job as prevention of violent crime and criminal drug activity. (Suppression Hearing Transcript, ECF No. 43-1, hereinafter “Tr., ” at 8). Detective Anderson had been involved in well over twenty-five drug arrests and over twenty-five gun arrests as of the date in question. (Tr. at 9). In summary, he testified he received a video on May 20, 2020, from a fellow officer showing Mr. Cain in possession of a firearm while driving a car. (Tr. at 1213).^[3] A few hours later, at approximately 3:00 p.m., while patrolling in plainclothes in an unmarked vehicle with Agent Smith of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, Detective Anderson saw Mr. Cain, the only occupant of the vehicle, driving a rented Nissan Rogue. Believing Mr. Cain to be driving without a valid license Detective Anderson stopped him. (Tr. at 13, 18).

Detective Anderson's knowledge of Mr. Cain prior to the stop, important to our analysis, is as follows. He credibly testified that during an interaction approximately two months before the traffic stop, ^[4] Detective Anderson believed that Mr. Cain's driver's license was suspended past May 20, 2020. (Tr. at 14, 35). Detective Anderson knew Defendant based on “at least ten” prior interactions. (Tr. at 12). He could not recall the date of any prior encounters with Defendant and did not know the reason for the license suspension, other than it was not related to a DUI conviction. Detective Anderson had seen Mr. Cain within a few weeks of the incident. He had previously pulled him over when Mr. Cain was the driver. (Tr. 34, ECF No 32-1 at 14). However, prior to the day of the stop, Anderson had never arrested Mr. Cain or cited him for a driving and/or vehicle code violation. (Tr. at 34, 42). There was no check of Mr. Cain's license status on the day of the stop.

A later check of the Defendant's driver history confirmed Detective Anderson's suspicion that the Defendant's license was suspended on the day of the stop, May 20, 2020. (Tr. at 17, Gov't Exhibits. 2^[5] and 3^[6]). Specifically, the Defendant's driver history indicated that he received a sixmonth suspension effective June 13, 2019 for a reckless driving offense that occurred on November 22, 2018. (Tr. at 15-16, Gov't Exhibits 2 and 3). The Defendant received a second sixmonth license suspension effective December 13, 2019 based on an incident that occurred on June 21, 2019 (Tr. at 16, Gov't Exhibits 2 and 3). The suspension of the Defendant's driver's license was also extended multiple times based on his failure to respond. (Tr. at 16, Gov't Exhibits 2 and 3). Thus, Mr. Cain's license has been continuously suspended since June 13, 2019.

Detective Anderson initiated the traffic stop because he believed the license to still be suspended based on the prior check. (Tr. at 36).

Detective Anderson testified:

Q. Now, you said you were familiar with Kendre Cain at the time you saw him driving the vehicle?

A. That's correct.

Q. How were you familiar with him?

A. Just he's been on traffic stops we've had. Just interacting with him in the neighborhood we patrol in.

Q. Approximately how many times had you interacted with him prior to that date?

A. I'd say at least ten times.

Q. Just to be clear, that does not mean that you arrested him or acquired ten arrests?

A. That's correct.

Q. Were you familiar with Mr. Cain having any type of reputation at that point?

A. I know he's been arrested for firearms and shootings.

(Tr. at 12). Mr. Cain's criminal history includes convictions^[7] on November 2, 2017 for prohibited possession of a firearm, tampering with and/or fabrication of physical evidence, and false identification to law enforcement officer. Commonwealth v. Cain, CP-02-CR-0015245-2016, https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/CaseSearch.

Detective Anderson testified that earlier that day he had received^[8] a video with text message on his personal cell phone depicting Mr. Cain...