United States v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 12 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 19-4445 JH |
| Citation | 554 F.Supp.3d 1124 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Andre Deshawn COLEMAN and Zavier Malik Jeter, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Benjamin J. Christenson, US Attorney's Office, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.
Hans Peter Erickson, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender Office, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant Andre Deshawn Coleman.
Roman R. Romero, The Romero Law Firm PA, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant Zavier Malik Jeter.
This matter comes before the Court on the following motions: (i) Motion to Suppress Evidence Derived from a Telephone "Dump" of his Cellular Telephone and Statements and Memorandum in Support Thereof (ECF No. 39) filed by Defendant Andre Deshawn Coleman ("Coleman"); (ii) Motion to Suppress Evidence and Memorandum in Support Thereof (ECF No. 40) filed by Defendant Coleman and Defendant Zavier Malik Jeter ("Jeter"); and (iii) Motion to Suppress Evidence Derived from his Unlawful Arrest, the Subsequent Violation of his Miranda Rights and from an Illegal Seizure of his Cellular Telephone (ECF No. 68) filed by Defendant Jeter. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motions on June 3, 2021. The Court, having considered the motions, briefs, arguments, evidence, law, and otherwise being fully advised, concludes that Defendants’ Motion to Suppress Evidence and Memorandum in Support Thereof (ECF No. 40) should be denied because the detention of the tractor trailer for purposes of an administrative search was constitutional and did not exceed the scope of a proper search. The Court, however, will grant in part Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 39 and 68) and suppress statements they made to law enforcement following their clear and unambiguous requests for counsel and the contents of their iPhones, discovered as a result of the failure to scrupulously honor their requests for counsel, but will otherwise deny the motions to suppress.
A federal grand jury charged Defendants with conspiracy to distribute 1,000 kilograms and more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana from on or about November 17, 2019, and continuing to on or about November 19, 2019, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1), and with possession with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms and more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 2). (Indictment, ECF No. 19.)
The charges stem from the inspection of a tractor trailer on November 19, 2019 at the New Mexico Commercial Motor Vehicle Port of Entry near Gallup, New Mexico ("Gallup port of entry"), which is located about 12 miles east of the Arizona/New Mexico state line on Interstate 40. All commercial motor vehicles that are not registered with the State of New Mexico are required to come into the port of entry to get checked to make sure they can travel across the state without having to pay for a trip permit. (Id. at 22:15-20.) Commercial vehicles with Drivewyze and PrePass, however, are not required to come into the port of entry, unless there is a discrepancy and they are red lighted. (See id. at 22:21-24:14.) Commercial trucks that pull up to the port of entry come through and stop at the credential booth, but if they do not need a trip permit or inspection, they are waved through the port of entry. (See id. at 24:19-25.)
Miranda Pinto ("Pinto"), a transportation inspector with the New Mexico State Police ("NMSP") commercial vehicle enforcement, was working at the Gallup port of entry on November 19, 2019. (See id. at 16:6-17, 38:6-7.) As a transportation inspector, Pinto's duties include ensuring the safety of commercial vehicle drivers and their equipment and enforcing the rules and regulations to which commercial motor vehicle drivers must abide. (See id. at 17:21-18:3, 30:8-17.) Pinto received training to perform various forms of inspection, including North American Standard classes for Level I, II, and III inspections. (See id. at 18:4-19:16, 25:18-29:4.) Pinto also received training on drug interdiction. (Id. at 89:6-8.)
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ("CVSA") is a group that sets the North American Standards for the different levels of inspection, which the transportation inspectors are required to follow. (See id. at 28:6-24.) Level I inspections are the most thorough, consisting of an inspection of the driver's logbook, all the driver's paperwork and supporting documents, the lighting, tires, cargo securement, and brakes. (See id. at 25:23-27:12.) In contrast to a Level I inspection, the Level II inspection does not consist of the brake measurements, but it is otherwise basically the same as the Level I inspection. (See id. at 27:13-25.) A Level III inspection mainly consists of checking the driver's paperwork and making sure the log-in device is up to date and his supporting documents are in his possession. (See id. at 28:1-5.)
As a transportation inspector, Pinto has a daily quota of inspections to conduct in a shift: five Level I inspections in a day; six Level II inspections in a day; or eight Level III inspections in a day. (See id. at 20:1-9.) She is generally assigned a certain inspection level for the day, but she may shift to a different inspection level based on time constraints in what is left for her shift. (See id. at 29:3-17.) Level I inspections often take her 45-60 minutes to complete. (See id. at 29:11-14.) Pinto chooses which truck to inspect at random by picking up the phone and asking for the next truck coming down the lane. (See id. at 25:4-14.)
On November 19, 2019, Inspector Pinto was assigned to do Level I inspections, but she was running out of time at 2:15 p.m. to finish her last inspection to meet her quota by the end of her shift. (See id. at 38:4-39:1, 88:5-7.) At approximately 2:15 p.m., a white tractor trailer driven by Coleman entered the Gallup port of entry. (See Hr'g Tr. 38:4-39:14; Gov.’s Ex. 6B.) Pinto called the booth and said to send the tractor trailer to her in Bay 1, but because of the time left in her shift, she turned the Level I inspection into a Level II inspection. (See Hr'g Tr. at 38:6-39:9.) She chose the truck because it appeared nice and clean and she expected to conduct the inspection quickly and leave her shift on time. (See id. at 40:6-15.) When the truck pulled into the bay, the inspection bay rear door closed, so the truck was not free to leave. (Id. at 91:8-12.) The cab of the truck was marked with "VinJet Logistics, LLC" with its USDOT number. (See Gov.’s Ex. 6C; Hr'g Tr. 141:11-15.)
Pinto explained to Coleman that she was going to do a Level II safety inspection and the process, and she asked for his required documents and if he had a co-driver. (See Hr'g Tr. 39:19-20, 43:17-44:3, 45:18-21.) Although Coleman did not answer the first time, the second time she asked, he said his co-driver was asleep. (Id. at 39:19-22.) She asked again a later time because she noticed a movement in the cab of the truck and thought his co-driver must be awake. (See id. at 39:19-40:2.) She later learned that Jeter, who was 24 years old at the time, was the co-driver. (See id. at 39:15-40:2, 220:3-5.)
Pinto reviewed Coleman's paperwork, checking the logbook and bills of lading to ensure there were no inconsistencies. (Id. at 44:6-45:11.) Coleman's signature was on a Bill of Lading dated 11-14-19 for a U-Haul pick-up of one box described as "General Commodities." (Gov.’s Ex. 3A; Hr'g Tr. 69:11-70:11.) A second Bill of Lading for a U-Haul shipment of three boxes of "General Commodities" had a blank space under "Carrier Signature at Pickup," which was unusual because drivers are expected to sign off on the bill of lading when they pick up the cargo. (See Gov.’s Ex. 3B; Hr'g Tr. 71:2-72:11, 131:11-132:16.) A third Bill of Lading listed a shipment of dehydrated cornmeal and stainless-steel cans from Sacramento, California, dated 11-15-19, which was signed by the carrier. (See Gov.’s Ex. 3C; Hr'g Tr. 73:2-74:16.) A fourth Bill of Lading showed a shipment from El Monte, California, and was signed with a pickup date of 11/18/2019. (See Gov.’s Ex. 3D.) The Bill of Lading listed 0401957 as the seal number and described the commodities as a shipping crate of steel finishing bars, set clamps, canvas, binding pins, transfer trays, and torque bar. (Id. ; Hr'g Tr. 75:12-76:25.) The final Bill of Lading listed U-Haul general commodities shipping from Sacramento, California, to Columbia, South Carolina, and was signed by Zavier Jeter on 11/18/19. (See Gov.’s Ex. 3E; Hr'g Tr. 77:17-78:25.) Generally, the bill of lading with the earliest date corresponds to cargo that is placed in the trailer closest to the cab, and the bill of lading with the most recent date corresponds to cargo closest to the back of the trailer near its door. (Hr'g Tr. 79:6-23.) At this point in time, Pinto believed the bills of lading and logbook appeared in order and Coleman had a valid commercial driver's license. (Id. at 106:16-23.)
After reviewing the paperwork, Pinto explained to Coleman about starting her walk-around inspection, going down the left side of the vehicle, to the back, and then up the right side of the vehicle. (See id. at 45:16-47:10.) During the walk around, Pinto checked the lights, tires, wires, air lines, and electrical lines. (Id. ) Around 25 minutes into the inspection, Coleman opened up the side box on the tractor so Pinto could check the emergency equipment and spare fuses, and she discovered that he did not have any spare fuses, which are used to replace lights that go out. (See id. at 47:11-48:5.) Pinto found a roll of plastic wrap in the side box. (Id. at 48:6-49:3.)
Although for a Level II inspection the CVSA requires the check of seatbelts, coupling devices, steering mechanism, suspension, and air loss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Devargas
...questions regarding an ambiguous statement, although ‘it will often be good police practice' to do so.” United States v. Coleman, 554 F.Supp.3d 1124, 1148 (D.N.M. 2021)(Browning, J.)(quoting Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. at 461 (concluding that a question about how long getting counsel w......
- United States v. Novondo-Ceballos
-
United States v. Hooton
... ... the technological capabilities to bypass a phone lock screen, ... the inevitable discovery doctrine applies, and evidence ... obtained by the subsequent search of the cell phone should ... not be suppressed. See United States v. Coleman, 554 ... F.Supp.3d 1124, 1157 (D.N.M. 2021) (declining to suppress the ... contents of a Galaxy phone under the doctrine of inevitable ... discovery, explaining “the likelihood that federal ... agents would have and could have discovered the contents of ... the ... ...