United States v. Clark
| Decision Date | 04 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:18-cr-408-RAH-JTA (WO) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DEMETRIS DUANE CLARK |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
This cause is before the court on Defendant Demetris Duane Clark's motion to suppress (Doc. No. 17) and the government's response in opposition thereto (Doc. No. 28). The court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion on July 29, 2020. (Doc. No. 54.) After due consideration of the parties' arguments, evidence and applicable law, the court concludes that the motion to suppress is due to be denied.
Defendant Demetris Duane Clark ("Clark") is charged with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (Doc. No. 1.) Clark seeks suppression of the methamphetamine discovered in a bookbag in his possession during a warrantless search of his vehicle. Clark also seeks to suppress statements he made on the day of his arrest and recordings of his jail telephone calls made during his detention in the days following his arrest. The United States responded to the motion asserting that the detention of Clark and subsequent search of his vehicle were lawful. This matter is ripe for disposition.
The testimony from the evidentiary hearing demonstrates that on February 7, 2017, Officer Benjamin Carswell ("Carswell") was employed as a narcotics investigator and canine handler with the Opelika Police Department.1 Around 11:00 a.m., Officer Carswell heard a police radio broadcast from Officer Cruze2 alerting officers to a search for a male suspect near Interstate 85. Officer Carswell testified that Officer Cruze completed the broadcast because he saw the man flee on foot across the interstate while he was investigating a burglary. Officer Cruze described the suspect as a Black male, approximately six feet tall, wearing a black hat, black shirt and tan or gray pants. Using a map of the area,3 Officer Carswell identified a ministorage business on the south side of the interstate where the burglary occurred and the area of the suspect's flight towards the Toomer Court apartments operated by the Opelika Housing Authority on the north side. Officer Carswell and two other narcotics detectives, Detectives Rogers and Garrett,4 responded in separate vehicles to the Toomer Court area to locate the suspect. Upon his arrival in the area, Detective Rogers notified the others that he observed a silver passenger car with a Georgia license plate driven by a Black male. The vehicle was traveling fromDogwood Avenue, a dead-end street, toward Hurst Street and W.E. Morton Avenue, which is where the officers believed the suspect to have fled.
When Officer Carswell heard the alert from Detective Rogers, he drove toward the intersection of Hurst Street and W.E. Morton Avenue and saw a silver car approaching W.E. Morton Avenue from a dead-end side street. Officer Carswell turned his vehicle, which was an unmarked law enforcement vehicle,5 around and briefly stopped on a nearby hill where he observed the silver car as it entered onto W.E. Morton Avenue. Officer Carswell observed that the silver car displayed a Georgia license plate and began to follow the silver car after it turned left onto W.E. Morton Avenue.6 The silver car then turned right onto Antioch Circle into another Opelika Housing Authority property. Immediately after turning onto Antioch Circle, the silver car turned left into an available parking space.
After the silver car parked, Officer Carswell parked his vehicle close to the rear of the silver car, without blocking it, and activated his vehicle lights. Officer Carswell testified that he intended to make contact with the occupants of the silver car to determine if they were connected to the burglary. Officer Carswell exited his vehicle and was approximately four feet from the silver car, when the driver, Demetris Duane Clark ("Clark"), exited the silver car. Officer Carswell testified that he "smelled a strong immediate odor of marijuana" when Clark opened his car door. (Doc. No. 54, Tr. at 17-19, 48-49.) Officer Carswell directed Clark to "hop back in the car right quick, hop back in the car right quick."7 (Gov. Ex. 1 at 2:04.) Clark complied, returned to his car and left his car door ajar. In response to an inaudible inquiry from Clark, Officer Carswell responded, "I'll explain it to you in a second." (Id. at 2:08.) Officer Carswell completed a communication with other officers on his radio and then, after greeting Clark and his female passenger, asked for their identification. (Id at 2:14.) Clark asked Officer Carswell, "what's going on?" (Id. at 2:25.) Officer Carswell replied that he (Id. at 2:27.) Clark replied affirmatively and Officer Carswell inquired further, "how much you got in here man? . . . Just be straight up with me." (Id. at 2:35.) Clark responded that he had "a little blunt" and handed Officer Carswell a small bag of marijuana when Officer Carswell asked to see it. (Id. at 2:37, Doc. No. 54, Tr. at 20.) Unprompted, Clark said that he just got out of jail, Officer Carswell asked him what he was in jail for and Clark responded, "same old thing." (Id. at 2:44.) Clark also told Officer Carswell that he was just pulling in to visit his friend Marcus but that he did not know Marcus's last name. (Id. at 2:51.)
Officer Carswell asked Clark whether he had anything else in the car including guns before telling Clark to hand him a bookbag that he observed in the backseat of Clark's car. (Id. at 3:02; Doc. No. 54, Tr. at 20, 33-34.) Officer Carswell testified there was no othercontraband in Clark's vehicle in plain view but that he was curious about the contents of the bookbag for two reasons: (1) he wanted to make sure that it did not contain weapons and (2) his experience and training led him to believe that the amount of marijuana Clark surrendered could not have produced the strong odor of marijuana coming from the car. Clark complied and provided the bookbag to Officer Carswell.8 Officer Carswell can be heard on the video unzipping the bookbag and shortly thereafter instructing Clark to give Officer Carswell his hands without exiting the car. (Gov. Ex. 1 at 3:32.) Officer Carswell testified that he searched the main compartment of the book bag and observed a large amount of marijuana.9 Officer Carswell placed Clark in handcuffs and Clark is heard saying, "you gotta be kidding me" as he complied. (Id. at 3:36; Doc. No. 54, Tr. at 22.) After Clark is placed in handcuffs, he tells Officer Carswell that there was no reason to pull him over. Officer Carswell explained to Clark that he did not pull him over because he did not block Clark's car and did not use his blue lights to effectuate a stop.10 (Id. at 3:53.)
Clark and his female passenger were taken to the Opelika Police Department and Clark claimed ownership of all the drugs discovered.
Officer Carswell testified that he did not remember what Clark was wearing, he could not have determined whether Clark's clothing matched that of the suspect while Clark was driving, and he conceded that the only part of the description Clark actually matched of the suspect at issue was that of a Black male. He also testified that he considered Clark detained and not free to leave at the moment he told Clark to remain in the car and that if Clark had tried to leave he would have charged Clark with attempting to elude an officer.11
Clark challenges the seizure, questioning and search of his vehicle by Officer Carswell under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Doc. No. 17.) He asserts that Officer Carswell lacked probable cause and reasonable suspicion to stop and seize him. (Id. at 4-5.) He acknowledges that the Fourth Amendment permits consensual encounters between law enforcement and citizens but asserts that his entire encounter with Officer Carswell was a seizure made possible only by Officer Carswell's show of force which compelled Clark to comply. (Id. at 6-7.) Clark also contends that he did not freely consent to Officer Carswell's warrantless search of his bag. (Id. at 10-12.) Clark urges the court to look to the totality of the circumstances to find that OfficerCarswell's manner and conduct during the encounter violated the Fourth Amendment because it left Clark with no choice in whether to surrender the bag for inspection.
Further, Clark seeks suppression of his statements made in response to Officer Carswell's questions during the encounter as violative of the Fifth Amendment because he was in custody for Miranda12 purposes. The specific statement at issue is Clark's response that he had "a little blunt" when asked by Officer Carswell if he possessed marijuana. (Id. at 8, 10.) Relying on Officer Carswell's testimony that he would have chased Clark and charged him criminally if he had attempted to end the encounter, Clark contends he was not free to leave and was in custody for Miranda purposes. (Doc. No. 54, Tr. at 56, 61.)
Finally, Clark seeks, absent argument in his motion, suppression of the recordings of his jail telephone calls in the days following his arrest as the fruit of an unlawful seizure. (Id. at 12.)
The government responds that Clark was not subjected to a traffic stop but was detained upon Officer Carswell's reasonable suspicion that he may have information related to a burglary investigation. (Doc. No. 28 at 2-4.) The government submits that the marijuana smell provided probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. (Id. at 5.) The government relies on Officer Carswell's suspicions as reasonable suspicion to develop Clark as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial