United States v. Coleman

• Decision Date: 18 May 2021
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL NO. 2:20-cr-23-TBM-MTP
• Citation: 540 F.Supp.3d 596
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Tawaski COLEMAN
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

540 F.Supp.3d 596

UNITED STATES of America

v.Tawaski COLEMAN

CRIMINAL NO. 2:20-cr-23-TBM-MTP

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division.

Signed May 18, 2021

Andrew William Eichner, Assistant US Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Jackson, MS, for United States of America.

Ellen Maier Allred, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Gulfport, MS, for Tawaski Coleman.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

TAYLOR B. McNEEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Tawaski Coleman is a convicted felon who was indicted for possession of a firearm after law enforcement obtained and executed a search warrant for his residence. The basis for the warrant was a statement from a confidential informant that the Defendant fired shots through his front door at an intruder. The primary question in this case is: can the undisputed reliability of a confidential informant—alone—save a search warrant under these circumstances? The Defendant says no, because the warrant is silent on the informant's basis of knowledge and therefore "bare bones." The Government says yes, because the confidential informant has been historically reliable. In fact, the Government claims that reliability can even validate a warrant based on uncorroborated gossip. Although the reliability of a confidential informant can salvage some scant search warrants, the totality of the circumstances does not save the search warrant in this case.

After obtaining the search warrant for the Defendant's residence, officers elected to tail him before executing the warrant. When the Defendant failed to use a turn signal, officers pulled him over. During the stop, officers smelled an odor of marijuana emitting from the car, and Defendant admitted to having just smoked marijuana. A passenger in the vehicle also informed officers that he had a firearm in the backseat. Significantly, officers told the Defendant that they had a search warrant for his residence. Defendant responded to this information by admitting that guns would be found in the house.

The law mandates suppression of the evidence related to the search warrant as fruit of the poisonous tree. This includes Defendant's statement that law enforcement would find guns at his residence. As the traffic stop was undisputedly lawful, however, the evidence obtained prior to the discussion of the search warrant is not excluded.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2017, a Forrest County Justice Court Judge, based on an affidavit sworn to by Metro Narcotics Agent Joe Kennedy, signed a warrant authorizing agents to search Tawaski Coleman's residence for handguns. [24-1]. The affidavit refers to information received from a reliable confidential informant. [24-1]. According to the informant, Coleman was in possession of guns at his residence. The informant "stated that someone tried to rob Coleman several weeks ago," and that Coleman "fired several shots through the front door at them." [24-1]. There are no details as to how the informant obtained this information or whether the informant had any personal knowledge of the described events. The affidavit is also silent as to whether agents conducted an investigation or attempted to corroborate the informant's claims.

In fact, at a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress, the Government conceded that no investigation was ever made into the informant's tip and that no additional information was provided to the judge at the time the warrant was presented. Coleman has submitted a copy of a computer aided dispatch (CAD) report describing a call made by a female at Coleman's residence on July 11, 2017. [35]. According to the CAD report, and contrary to part of the informant's tip, the female caller—as opposed to Coleman—fired shots at someone who had attempted to "break into her house."

On July 28, 2017, prior to executing the search warrant, agents began surveillance of Coleman. It was during this surveillance that agents conducted a traffic stop based on Coleman's failure to use a turn signal, in violation of Section 63-3-707 of the Mississippi Code. [24] at 2. Agents detected the smell of marijuana, and Coleman admitted to having just smoked marijuana. Id. Also, a passenger informed the agents that there was a gun in the back seat.¹ Id.

At this point, agents informed Coleman about the search warrant for his residence. Id. In response, Coleman stated that there was nothing at his residence other than firearms and a bag of marijuana. Id. During the search of his residence, agents found a Glock .45 caliber pistol with a high-capacity magazine, a Taurus 9mm handgun, an AK-47 rifle, and four bags of marijuana. [24-1] at 4.

On June 23, 2020, Coleman was federally indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [3]. Coleman now argues that the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant and any statements made in connection with the warrant should be suppressed as "fruit of an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution." [24] at 1, 7.

II. THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS

Coleman alleges that the affidavit underlying the warrant constitutes a "bare bones" affidavit "lacking sufficient facts and circumstances from which an issuing judge might independently determine probable cause." [24] at 3. The fill-in-the blank warrant largely consists of boilerplate language with little additional information. [24-1] at 1. The only filled-in sections include (1) the Defendant's given name and his street name ("RED"), (2) the Defendant's address, and (3) a description of specific items to be found as "several handguns." Id.

The "Underlying Facts and Circumstances" statement attached to the affidavit provides as follows:

On July 27, 2017, I Agent Kennedy of Metro narcotics, along with Special Agent (SA) Mark Mitchell received information from a creditable [sic] and reliable DEA Confidential Source that a black male known as Tawaski Coleman, AKA "RED" possessed multiple firearms at his residence aforementioned. Coleman is a known active gang member of the National Street Gang, "Vice Lords". Coleman has a prior felony conviction. Due to the recent spike in gang related violence in the Hattiesburg, Mississippi area. [sic] The CS contacted SA Mitchell and Agent Kennedy and advised them that Coleman was in possession of a firearm at the above mentioned address. The CS also stated that someone tried to rob Coleman several weeks ago and Coleman observed them on his home surveillance system and fired several shots through the front door at them. The CS has been a confidential source since 2003. The CS has provided information in the past that has led to numerous felony arrest[s] and the seizure of large quantities of narcotics. The CS has also provided past information that led to the apprehension of several fugitives.

[24-1] at 3.

Coleman's objections to the affidavit focus on the lack of detail. He argues that the affidavit fails to address the confidential informant's basis of knowledge, and that the information may arise from many levels of hearsay. Coleman further asserts that the agents did not independently corroborate the informant's statements. [24] at 3.

The Government acknowledged, at the hearing on the motion to suppress, that the informant's factual basis could have come from rumors on social media or twenty levels of hearsay. But the Government submits that the affidavit contains enough information from a reliable informant to determine probable cause. [30] at 8.

III. DISCUSSION

The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and further requires that all warrants be supported by probable cause. See U.S. Const. amend. IV. "Evidence collected in violation of that requirement is typically subject to the exclusionary rule and may be suppressed to deter future law enforcement misconduct." United States v. Bell , 832 F. App'x 298, 300–01 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Ganzer , 922 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 2019) ).² Application of the exclusionary rule is not automatic, however. When law enforcement officers seize evidence through objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant, the Fourth Amendment does not require that courts suppress the evidence. United States v. Huerra , 884 F.3d 511, 515 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984) ). This principle is the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Huerra , 884 F.3d at 515.

In considering a motion to suppress, the Court engages in a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies and (2) whether the warrant was supported by probable cause. United States v. Laury , 985 F.2d 1293, 1311 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405 ). "Principles of judicial restraint and precedent dictate that, in most cases, [the court] should not reach the probable cause issue if a decision on the admissibility of the evidence under the good-faith exception of Leon will resolve the matter." United States v. Craig , 861 F.2d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 1988).

1. Whether the Good-faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Applies

The good-faith exception provides that "evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the warrant was unsupported by probable cause." Laury , 985 F.2d at 1311 (citing Leon , 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405 ). However, "it is clear that in some circumstances the officer will have no reasonable grounds for believing that the warrant was properly issued." Leon , 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405. For example, "an officer may not obtain a warrant based on a bare bones affidavit ‘and then rely on colleagues who are ignorant of the circumstances under which the warrant was obtained to conduct the search.’ "...