United States v. Celes
| Decision Date | 04 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:20-cr-00056-NONE-SKO,1:20-cr-00056-NONE-SKO |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JASON ALLEN CELES, Defendant. |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Currently pending before the court is the motion to suppress evidence brought on behalf of defendant Jason Allen Celes. (Doc. No. 31.) The court initially heard oral argument on the motion on February 12, 2021, and thereafter held an evidentiary hearing on May 12, 2021 and May 26, 2021, followed by post-hearing argument on the latter date. (Doc. Nos. 38, 48, 54.) At the hearings, Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine Schuh appeared by video on behalf of the government, attorney Douglas Foster appeared by video on behalf of defendant, and defendant Celes was present by video and in custody. (Id.) Having reviewed the parties' submissions, and having considered their oral arguments and the evidence submitted at the evidentiary hearing, for the reasons explained below, the court will grant defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
The following summary of the relevant facts is based on evidence submitted by the parties attached to their briefing and the testimony and exhibits presented at the two-day evidentiary hearing. Modesto Police Department ("MPD") officers Steven Poortinga and Noe Pena are members of the crime-reduction team in charge of addressing complaints involving quality of life, including drug dealing and theft, in an area of Modesto referred to within the MPD as "Beat 62." Officer Poortinga testified that he has over 20 years of experience as a law enforcement officer and has been with MPD since 2017. He has worked with MPD's crime-reduction team for three years and also has familiarity with investigating drug trafficking crimes. Officer Pena testified that he has been with MPD for nine years, the last three of which have been spent with the crime-reduction team. At some time prior to the events at issue here, the crime-reduction team had been made aware of two or three houses located in Beat 62 associated with criminal activity.1
On July 11, 2019, officer Poortinga was driving a marked police vehicle, with officer Pena in the passenger seat, patrolling a residential neighborhood in Beat 62. At about 3:30 p.m. the officers noticed a white Volkswagen, later identified to be driven by defendant Celes, driving slowly. The officers followed the Volkswagen until it made a right-hand turn and parked near the 1900 block of Estep Drive. The officers saw defendant exit his vehicle and approach one of the houses on Estep Drive. Officer Poortinga initially passed the Volkswagen, circled the block, and parked the patrol car several houses behind the Volkswagen. According to officer Pena, it took 30 seconds to circle the block. The officers testified that after gaining a better vantage point, they still did not actually observe defendant Celes. Officer Poortinga testified that he was partially distracted during this period of time, and officer Pena testified he could not actually see which house defendant apparently entered. After about a minute or two, defendant Celes appeared to exit the area of one house and returned to the Volkswagen. Officer Poortinga believed this short stay by defendant at the house on Estep Drive was potentially related to the sale of drugs.
///// The Volkswagen then drove down Estep Drive. Officer Poortinga was about five to six car-lengths behind the Volkswagen which then made two right turns, the first on Gulfstream Drive and the second on Muncy Drive. Officer Poortinga accelerated his patrol vehicle so as to be directly behind the Volkswagen. Officer Poortinga believed that, at this point, defendant Celes knew he was being followed by a marked police vehicle because he looked back at one point. The Volkswagen then pulled into the driveway at 1905 Muncy Drive. At that point, officer Poortinga stopped his patrol vehicle in the middle of Muncy Drive behind the Volkswagen. It is undisputed that the patrol vehicle was partially blocking the Volkswagen from backing out of the driveway, as well as creating an obstacle for any traffic attempting to travel down Muncy Drive.2
After stopping on Muncy Drive, both defendant and officer Poortinga immediately exited their vehicles and approached each other. Officer Pena also got out of the patrol vehicle and approached the passenger sitting in the Volkswagen. Because officer Poortinga did not engage his body camera immediately upon exiting the patrol car, the very beginning of his encounter with defendant was not recorded. Moreover, officer Poortinga did not recall what he said to defendant at the very beginning of their encounter. However, once the body camera started to record video without any audio, officer Poortinga was already in possession of defendant's
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
///// driver's license.3 When the audio of the body camera first started to record, the footage reflects officer Poortinga questioning defendant Celes about potential wrongdoing. He asked defendant whether he had been arrested before and whether he was worried about having any outstanding warrants, and also warned defendant to keep his hands out of his pockets. (Gov't Ex. 3, Body Camera Video of Officer Poortinga, "Body Camera") at 0:30-0:59.) According to officer Poortinga, during this encounter, defendant was nervous, appeared to look for an escape route, and was motioning towards his pockets as though he was attempting to determine if he was in possession of anything illegal. Very early on, just after defendant replied that he was "not doing anything, sir," officer Poortinga told the defendant not to (Id. at 0:59-1:03.)4 Officer Poortinga continued, "We obviously got a problem over in this area so we're coming over here to make sure everything is good." (Id. at 1:05-1:09.) The officer then told the defendant, (Id. at 1:17-1:25.) After defendant denied possessing anything illegal, officer Poortinga stated:
Be straight with me dude. I'm like a straightforward dude, I - I don't even want to dick around. If you're legit, you're legit, that's fine. Whatever. But if you're dirty right now, just be like, 'Ayo, this is what I've got.' And I'm cool with that, okay? Then we can work on whether or not you're going to go to jail or get a ticket, but if you're silly then I straight take you to jail. Okay?
(Id. at 1:29-1:49.) It was only then that defendant admitted he was in possession of illegal narcotics and that officer Poortinga arrested and searched him. (Id. at 1:49-4:30.)
The search of the defendant revealed that he was in possession of methamphetamine, heroin, cash, a hypodermic needle, a glass pipe, and some pills. (Doc. Nos. 31 at 4; see also 35 at 2-3.) Specifically, 17 grams of heroin and 17 grams of methamphetamine were recovered from defendant's person. (Doc. No. 31 at 4.) The officers then searched the white Volkswagen, discovering two ounces of methamphetamine and a loaded handgun. (Id.) MPD officers thereafter searched defendant's residence, locating an additional seven ounces of methamphetamine. (Id.) According to the government, in total MPD officers recovered approximately 295 grams of methamphetamine from defendant's person, vehicle, and residence. (Doc. No. 35 at 3.)
Defendant Celes was charged in this case by way of indictment with possession of 5 grams or more of actual methamphetamine and 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Doc. No. 9.) Defendant Celes has moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of his detention and subsequent searches on the ground that he was seized by officer Poortinga without reasonable cause to believe that he was engaged in illegal activity. (Doc. No. 31.) The government opposes that motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the officers' initial encounter with defendant was consensual and, in any event, the encounter did not become a temporary detention or seizure until after a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity had developed. (Doc. No. 35.) Specifically, the position taken by the government following the evidentiary hearing is that the required reasonable suspicion of criminal activity developed before officer Poortinga advised defendant Celes not to run. (See id. at 8.)
The Fourth Amendment states, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S. Const. amend. IV. A seizure within the scope of the Fourth Amendment is not automatically found each time a police officer approaches an individual and asks questions. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991). No seizure under the Fourth Amendment takes place so long as a reasonable person would feel free "to disregard the police and go about his business." California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621, 628 (1991); see also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980) (); United States v. Brown, 996 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2021); United States v. McClendon, 713 F.3d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 2013). To measure the consensual nature of an encounter with law enforcement, courts have found that "[o]nly when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a 'seizure' has occurred."...
To continue reading
Request your trial