United States v. Clark, CR15-3030-MWB

• Decision Date: 27 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. CR15-3030-MWB,CR15-3030-MWB
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JONETTA CLARK, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JONETTA CLARK, Defendant.

No. CR15-3030-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

October 27, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................. 2

A. Procedural Background ........................................................... 2

B. Factual Background ............................................................... 3

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 5

A. Standard Of Review ................................................................ 5

B. Clark's Objections To Report and Recommendation ...................... 10

1. Factual Objections ....................................................... 10

a. Weiland's testimony regarding whether Clark's car was stopped ................................................... 10

b. Weiland's testimony regarding whether Clark fastened her seat belt ............................................ 11

c. Weiland's testimony that he observed Clark accelerate rapidly ................................................ 12

d. Weiland's reason for arresting Clark ........................ 13

2. Objections to legal conclusions ........................................ 13

a. Whether Weiland had a basis to stop or arrest Clark for not wearing a seat belt .............................. 13

b. Innocent explanation ............................................ 16

c. Stop to investigate "past" criminal activity .................. 17

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 19

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

On July 23, 2015, an Indictment was returned against defendant Jonetta Clark, charging her with possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of pure methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). Clark subsequently filed a Motion to Suppress in which she seeks to suppress all evidence seized from her car and all evidence derived from that search. Clark argues that Fort Dodge Police Officer Chris Weiland had no lawful reason to pursue and arrest her because he lacked probable cause to believe that she had committed a criminal offense. Clark thus contends that all evidence seized during and after the allegedly unlawful arrest must be suppressed. The prosecution filed a timely resistance to Clark's motion. Clark's Motion to Suppress was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Strand conducted an evidentiary hearing and then filed a Report and Recommendation in which he recommends that Clark's Motion to Suppress be denied. In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Strand initially concluded that Weiland was entitled to initiate a traffic stop of Clark's car because he observed events giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that Clark was violating Iowa's seat belt law. Thus, Judge Strand concluded that Weiland's attempt to initiate a traffic stop based on that reasonable suspicion did not violate Clark's Fourth Amendment rights. Based on that finding, Judge Strand further concluded that Weiland had probable cause to arrest Clark for interference with official acts based on his personal observations of her flight andattempted disposal of evidence. Alternatively, Judge Strand determined that, even if Weiland's attempt to stop Clark was improper, Clark's response to that attempt nonetheless gave rise to probable cause for Weiland to arrest her on a charge of interference with official acts because Clark was not entitled to resist or obstruct in hopes that the attempted traffic stop would subsequently be deemed unlawful.

Clark has filed objections to Judge Strand's Report and Recommendation. The prosecution filed a timely response to Clark's objections. I, therefore, undertake the necessary review of Judge Strand's recommended disposition of Clark's Motion to Suppress.

B. Factual Background

In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Strand made the following factual findings:

On the evening of June 20, 2015, Officer Weiland was traveling south in his marked police vehicle on South 15th Street in Fort Dodge. As he approached the "T" intersection of South 15th Street and 18th Avenue South, he observed a black Cadillac approaching the intersection from the east (Weiland's left). In two separate police department reports and a sworn criminal complaint, Weiland wrote that he "observed a black Cadillac with a black female driver stopped at the intersection without a seat beat on." Ex. A at 2; Ex. B at 18; Ex. C at 1-2. Weiland testified, however, that he first saw the vehicle while it was still in forward motion. Video from Weiland's dashboard camera (Ex. F) does, in fact, show the Cadillac in forward motion as it slowed to a stop, but the video is not sufficiently clear to discern whether the driver (later identified as Clark) was wearing a seat belt.

Weiland was preparing to turn left onto 18th Avenue South at the time, meaning he would turn directly in front ofClark's vehicle. He testified that as he approached that vehicle, he saw Clark reach up, grab her seat beat and pull it down, as if to fasten it. He cannot recall whether Clark's vehicle was fully stopped or still decelerating when Clark made this movement. In any event, Weiland decided to initiate a traffic stop based on his suspicion that Clark had been operating her vehicle without wearing a seat belt.

Weiland completed his left turn and then entered a driveway in order to turn his vehicle around and pursue Clark. He testified that as he executed this maneuver, he looked back at the intersection and saw Clark turn right onto South 15th Street and accelerate rapidly. He perceived her rate of acceleration to be faster than normal. He then turned back onto South 15th Street to pursue Clark. Soon thereafter, he saw Clark's vehicle turn left into a driveway off of South 15th Street, less than one block from the intersection with 18th Avenue South. Weiland followed Clark's vehicle and activated his overhead lights (but not his siren) just before making the left turn into the driveway.

Clark drove her vehicle to the end of the driveway, which was relatively long. She then exited the vehicle quickly, leaving the driver's side door open, and fled to an adjacent, downhill embankment that leads to the Des Moines River. Weiland parked his vehicle behind Clark's Cadillac and pursued her on foot. He testified that he could see Clark stumbling and falling down the steep embankment. He followed and likewise fell at least once. He does not recall whether he ever yelled anything at Clark during the pursuit. Weiland quickly caught up with Clark and placed her under arrest. He testified that the arrest was based on an alleged violation of Iowa Code § 719.1 (interference with official acts).1 Weiland did not place Clark in handcuffs at that time, as she was complaining of a leg injury and he believed it was going to be difficult to walk her back up the steep hill. As they walked, Clark attempted to reach into a purse she wascarrying. According to Weiland, he was concerned that she might be reaching for a weapon, so he seized the purse. As they approached the top of the embankment, Weiland threw the purse to the top so he could help Clark ascend the final, steep portion. Once they reached the top, Clark again reached for the purse and, this time, was able to pull an object from it. She then threw the object down the embankment. Weiland restrained Clark while waiting for backup to arrive and kept watch on the area where the object had landed.

Once additional officers arrived, Weiland went back down the embankment to retrieve the item Clark had thrown. He found a large clear plastic bag which held (a) two smaller clear bags containing a crystal substance and (b) two smaller clear bags containing a green leafy substance. Based on his training and experience, Weiland believed that the substances were methamphetamine and marijuana. A subsequent search of Clark's purse revealed additional items of evidentiary value, as did a search of Clark's vehicle pursuant to a search warrant.

Report and Recommendation at 2-4 (footnote omitted). After reviewing the record, I adopt all of Judge Strand's factual findings that have not been objected to by Clark.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Standard Of Review

I review Judge Strand's Report and Recommendation pursuant to the statutory standards found in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1):

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) (stating identical requirements); N.D. IA. L.R. 72, 72.1 (allowing the referral of dispositive matters to a magistrate judge but not articulating any standards to review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation). While examining these statutory standards, the United States Supreme Court explained:

Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). Thus, a district court may review de novo any issue in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation at any time. Id. If a party files an objection to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation,...