United States v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 30 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | 6:06-CR-06105 EAW |
| Citation | 342 F.Supp.3d 375 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Calvin CAMPBELL, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Douglas E. Gregory, U.S. Attorney's Office, Rochester, NY, for United States of America.
DECISION AND ORDER
Defendant Calvin Campbell ("Defendant"), convicted of a felony drug crime in 2007, faces charges that he violated the terms and conditions of supervised release by possessing and trafficking in illegal narcotics. On August 2, 2018, New York State Troopers stopped Defendant driving a black Toyota Venza with illegally tinted windows. Ultimately, Defendant's supervising probation officer arrived at the scene, and the Venza was searched, resulting in the discovery of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana packaged for distribution. Defendant does not challenge the underlying facts related to the discovered narcotics; rather, he contends the search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Because the exclusionary rule does not apply to a supervised release proceeding, and because even if it did Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, the Court finds Defendant guilty as charged of violating the terms and conditions of supervised release.
Convicted by a plea in 2007 for distributing five grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B) and 851, Defendant was sentenced by United States District Judge David G. Larimer on February 13, 2008, to 90 months in the Bureau of Prisons to be followed by eight years of supervised release.
(Dkt. 45). After Defendant served his prison sentence, on March 27, 2015, a petition was filed alleging that Defendant violated certain terms and conditions of supervised release. (Dkt. 65). Judge Larimer transferred the case to the undersigned. (Dkt. 66).
On December 1, 2015, Defendant pleaded guilty to violating Condition 1 of the Third Amended Petition, and the Court revoked Defendant's supervised release and sentenced him to 12 months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be followed by 51 months of supervised release. (Dkt. 90). Among the conditions of supervised release imposed pursuant to the Court's Judgment was the mandatory condition that Defendant "shall not commit another federal, state or local crime." (Id. at 3). In addition, the Court imposed the following special condition: "The defendant shall submit to a search of his/her person, property, vehicle, place of residence or any other property under his control, based upon reasonable suspicion, and permit confiscation of any evidence or contraband discovered." (Id. at 4).
Defendant commenced his 51-month supervised release term on November 4, 2016. (See Dkt. 91 at 1). Less than two years into that term, on August 3, 2018, a Petition was filed alleging that Defendant violated the terms and conditions of supervised release as follows:
Violation Nature of Noncompliance
Number
1/Mandatory The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime
Condition
Details: On August 2, 2018, Mr. Campbell was pulled over by New
York State Troopers in the City of Rochester for traffic violations. He
was the sole occupant of the vehicle. In plain view, our office observed
three (3) cell phones. During the course of speaking with Mr. Campbell
he became agitated and not listening to the Troopers['] commands. As
such, they placed him in handcuffs for officer safety reasons. Our office
then conducted a search of the vehicle and we located a quantity of
heroin, cocaine and marijuana, all packaged for sale. New York State
Police arrested the defendant and charged him with two (2) counts of
violating NYS Penal Law 220.16, Sub 1 — Criminal Possession
Controlled Substances 3rd (Class B felony) and Unlawful Possession of
Marijuana (viol.)
2/Mandatory The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime
Condition
Details: As noted in Violation Number One (1) of this petition, Mr
Campbell was in possession of heroin, cocaine and marijuana. This is
in violation of Title 21, U.S.C., Section 844 — Simple Possession of a
Controlled Substance
3/Mandatory The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime.
Condition
Details: As noted in Violation Number One (1) of this petition, Mr.
Campbell was in possession of heroin, cocaine and marijuana. This is
in violation of Title 21, U.S.C., Section 841(a)(1) — Possession with
Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance.
(Id. at 1-2).
Defendant's initial appearance occurred on August 8, 2018, at which time he pleaded not guilty to the charges in the Petition. (Dkt. 92). A revocation hearing was held before the undersigned on October 31, 2018. (Dkt. 98). The Government called two witnesses to testify at the hearing: New York State Trooper Peter Ferguson and United States Probation Officer Jeremy Bedette. In addition, the Government introduced six exhibits into evidence as follows:
Government Exhibit 1 Judgment entered December 3, 2015
Government Exhibit 2 ATLAS email to Officer Bedette dated 8/2/18
Government Exhibit 3 Phone records of Officer Bedette from 8/2/18
Government Exhibit 4 Evidence Record
Government Exhibit 5 Monroe Co. Crime Lab Evidence Intake Form
Government Exhibit 6 Monroe Co. Crime Lab Report
Defendant did not call any witnesses, but he cross-examined Trooper Ferguson and Officer Bedette, and he introduced into evidence an eJusticeNY report that was designated as Defendant's Exhibit A.
On November 14, 2018, the Government and Defendant simultaneously submitted post-hearing memoranda. (Dkt. 99 (Gov't); Dkt. 100 (Defense) ).
Trooper Ferguson has been employed by the New York State Police since March 2015. On August 2, 2018, he was driving a marked patrol vehicle in the City of Rochester, working with Trooper Cody Tropey. At approximately 1:30 PM, he conducted a traffic stop on Norton Avenue in the City of Rochester, because the windows of a black Toyota Venza appeared to have less than 70% transparency in violation of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law.2 Trooper Ferguson approached the driver's side of the Venza and Trooper Tropey approached the passenger's side. Before Trooper Ferguson reached the Venza, Defendant was holding his license out of the driver's side window that had been rolled down about halfway. Defendant was the sole occupant. Trooper Ferguson began to explain to Defendant the reason he had been pulled over (for the alleged illegal tint), and Defendant responded that he should just go write the ticket so that he could get on with his day. Trooper Ferguson did not observe any drugs or anything else that he viewed as suspicious during his initial interaction with Defendant.
Trooper Ferguson returned to his police vehicle to run a license and registration check. Trooper Ferguson received information on his mobile data transmitter ("MDT system") that Defendant was on supervised release with contact information for Officer Bedette.3 Trooper Ferguson telephoned Officer Bedette to advise of the traffic stop, and Officer Bedette indicated that he was just a couple streets away and asked that Trooper Ferguson "sit tight" because Officer Bedette had information about Defendant's alleged involvement with drugs and weapons. Trooper Ferguson estimated that only a minute or two elapsed from the time he stopped Defendant's vehicle until when he called Officer Bedette.
Officer Bedette arrived on the scene within approximately 5-10 minutes of the initial stop and approached Defendant's vehicle. According to Trooper Ferguson, Defendant exited the vehicle yelling; he was upset, and he was screaming at cars on the side of the road and people in parking lots to have them contact his girlfriend. After telling Defendant to calm down several times, with no success, Trooper Ferguson handcuffed Defendant and placed him in his police vehicle "for officer safety."
Trooper Ferguson became aware that there was going to be a search of the Venza, but he testified that he did not participate in the search. He testified that he became aware that contraband was discovered and he took custody of the material and secured it at the police station. The narcotics were sent to the Monroe County Crime Laboratory for testing.
According to Trooper Ferguson, Defendant was issued a ticket for driving with illegally tinted windows in violation of New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(12-a)(b)(2). The tint on the windows, as reflected by the ticket, was tested with a tint meter as 18%, meaning only 18% of visible light was allowed through the Venza's side windows.4
Officer Bedette has been employed as a U.S. Probation Officer for 11 years. In that capacity, he supervises defendants who are on pretrial supervision awaiting trial and those who have been released from prison and are serving on supervised release.
Officer Bedette began supervising Defendant when he was released from the Bureau of Prisons in November 2016. On or about November 7, 2016, Officer Bedette personally interviewed Defendant and went over all the conditions of supervised release. Defendant had no questions about the conditions. Defendant signed the following statement: (Se...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hightower
...conclusion is also consistent with post- Scott decisions of the district courts in this Circuit. See, e.g. , United States v. Campbell , 342 F. Supp. 3d 375, 386–87 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) ; United States v. Spencer , No. 06-cr-413 (DLI), 2016 WL 6781225, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2016) ; United Sta......
-
United States v. Dekattu
...by Rivera could also reasonably be construed as a manifestation of anxiety about being searched (see, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 342 F. Supp. 3d 375, 390-91 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (finding reasonable suspicion in part based on defendant's "irate and belligerent" reaction to being stopped), a......
-
United States v. Elder
...(7th Cir. 2019) (the exclusionary rule does not apply in a violation of supervised release proceeding); United States v. Campbell, 342 F. Supp. 3d 375, 386-87 (W.D.N.Y. 2018)2. The Court presided over defendant Elder's trial on the three-Count Indictment at 17-CR-05-A. The jury heard that U......