United States v. Curtis

Decision Date29 September 2020
Docket NumberCriminal Action No. 4:19-CR-00817
Citation490 F.Supp.3d 1183
Parties UNITED STATES of America v. Eric Wayne CURTIS
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

Christine Jiadai Lu, Financial Litigation, U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for USA.

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Charles Eskridge, United States District Judge

The United States government has charged Defendant Eric Wayne Curtis with the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 USC §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Dkt 12. Officers of the Houston Police Department seized these items during a search of Curtis's person after a warrantless entry into his home. Curtis moves to suppress this evidence as the fruit of an unconstitutional search. Dkt 18.

Warrantless entry and searches within a person's home are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that exceptions applied regarding consent and the rendering of emergency aid. It also asserts that a limited pat-down search of Curtis was permitted once the officers were inside his home. But the government establishes neither the requisite emergency nor actual consent under the totality of the circumstances. With nothing constitutionally justifying their presence in Curtis's home, the evidence seized from him during the pat-down search cannot be used in his prosecution.

The motion to suppress is granted.

1. Findings of fact

The Court held an extensive evidentiary hearing on this motion by videoconference due to circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. The government presented testimony from Officers Aaron Crum and Sarah Wakefield. Both were present in Curtis's home at the time of the pat-down search, which Officer Crum conducted. They are two members of a Houston Police Department "hot spot" team. These teams exist to proactively combat crime in the city's high-crime areas. Tr 18.

The government placed into evidence these officers’ bodycam videos of the events on the street and inside Curtis's home on the evening of his arrest, along with another bodycam video from Officer Pierce D'Avila. Dkt 27. The government also put into evidence a relevant screenshot taken from Officer Wakefield's bodycam video of wounds

that Curtis had sustained earlier that evening. Id.

Curtis offered into evidence the incident report that Officer Crum prepared the next morning. Dkt 26. He did so to impeach testimony as inconsistent with that more-contemporaneous account of the evening. He also offered his Harris County criminal history background. Dkt 26-1. Curtis did this to emphasize a lack of violence or firearm-related convictions. Tr 80–81. That is generally so, but his record is extensive. It shows twenty-five offenses in Harris County dating back to 2001. Dkt 26-1. Most relate to drug possession. Six others were for resisting or evading arrest. And one dismissed charge was for murder.

The Court has reviewed the three bodycam videos in their entirety. They range up to 120 minutes in length. Substantial excerpts were played during the testimony of both Officers Crum and Wakefield, upon which they were closely questioned. The details of the conversations, the gestures and conduct of the persons involved, and the scene depicted on the videos is central to the analysis. But the transcript reflects only notation of "Video Played" during referenced excerpts, without transcription of anything said or seen as they played. For example, see Tr 22. The narrative that follows of those quotes and that visual record is thus the Court's own. It is primarily drawn from the bodycam video of Officer Crum. But each video reflects the events at issue from slightly different perspectives, with some aspects on only one video and not the others. Each video was synced to the same date and time, and timestamp indications are to the displayed time on the videos.

The Court makes the following factual findings based on the videos, the testimony, and the exhibits presented.

21:14:30: Officers Crum and Wakefield were together in a patrol car in north Houston on the evening of September 21, 2019. Tr 19. A report came over the police radio about a recent shooting. It identified Curtis as a potential shooting victim. Briefing establishes that the shooting occurred approximately two hours earlier at 7:19 p.m. Dkt 19 at 1.

Both officers testified that they knew Curtis and recognized the address as his home. Tr 19, 98. They were specifically familiar with his criminal background. Tr 25; see Dkt 26-1 (criminal record). Officer Crum testified that Curtis is a documented gang member. Tr 24.

21:15:32: Officers Crum and Wakefield arrived at Curtis's home to assist the responding officers. Tr 19. Other officers were already present, along with a fire truck and several Houston Fire Department (HFD) and emergency medical technician (EMT) personnel.

21:16:03: Officers Crum and Wakefield began talking with Delvin Grundy about thirty seconds after arriving. Grundy is Curtis's cousin. He told them that he'd been informed that Curtis came home after having been shot but then rode off on a bicycle. Grundy said that he placed the call to the police and asked for an ambulance. He also said that he hadn't personally seen Curtis but instead arrived at the home after Curtis left on the bicycle.

21:17:10: The name of Curtis's sister wasn't made part of the record. But it was at this point that she joined the conversation. A young teenage boy also came out of Curtis's house. Curtis's sister identified him as her son and told him to go back inside and put on a shirt.

21:17:40: Officer D'Avila arrived on the scene shortly after. Officer Wakefield told him that Curtis had been shot at a location about five miles away from his house. Officer Wakefield testified that she thought Curtis had likely been shot in a retaliatory shooting. Tr 97.

21:18:25: Officer D'Avila then joined the conversation with Grundy. Grundy told the officers that Curtis wouldn't want to go in an ambulance, so he had to "trick" him into going. He also mentioned that Curtis does "wet" at times, but he didn't know whether he was using that night. Testimony established that "wet" is a street term meaning phencyclidine, also known as PCP. Tr 31. Another family friend also approached the conversation during this time.

21:21:05: It was at this point that Curtis returned home riding his bicycle. This was about five minutes after Officers Crum and Wakefield had arrived on scene. Officer Crum used Curtis's nickname and said, "E-Bay, get over here!" Officers Crum, Wakefield, and D'Avila then approached Curtis as he was riding up to his house. Several other officers, HFD and EMT personnel, and Grundy also walked over to him.

21:20:20: Curtis stopped riding as he reached them. He stood while still astride the bicycle. Officer Crum testified that Curtis seemed delirious. Tr 27. Officers Crum and Wakefield both asked Curtis where he had been shot. Curtis confirmed he was shot in the face and arm. Officer Wakefield shined her flashlight, and injuries were apparent to his right upper arm and right cheek. Both were covered with small bandages. Officer Crum testified that he couldn't get a good look at the injuries because of these dressings

. Tr 27. Blood had leaked through the arm bandages, but the wound wasn't actively bleeding. Curtis said the bullet had passed through. The wound on his cheek appeared to be a graze only, and little if any blood was leaking from the bandage. See also Dkt 27 (screenshot).

21:21:34: About a minute after Curtis rode up on the bicycle, Officer D'Avila asked him, "Why don't you get off the bike and just sit down for me real quick, OK? We're going to have HFD come check you out, OK?" Curtis replied, "Alright." Officer D'Avila put his hand on Curtis's left arm to assist him off. Grundy grabbed the other arm and Curtis's bicycle.

21:21:42: An ambulance then arrived and parked behind the fire truck. Officer D'Avila asked him, "You wanna take a seat?" Curtis didn't answer. He instead started walking towards his home and away from the ambulance. Grundy then caught up to him from behind, grabbing his right arm and telling him several times to sit down. Officer D'Avila also then grabbed Curtis's left arm. This stopped Curtis from proceeding on to his home.

21:22:20: An EMT or someone from HFD then approached and told Curtis that they just wanted to check him out. Officer D'Avila told Curtis that he wasn't in trouble. Curtis said, "Alright." Officer D'Avila asked, "You'll sit in the ambulance with us, right?" Curtis didn't respond. Officer D'Avila then asked, "You want your people to come take you?" Curtis replied, "Yeah."

21:22:35: Officer D'Avila released Curtis's arm. Still holding him, Grundy twice asked, "Want me to take you? I'll take you." Two individuals that were either EMTs or HFD personnel then said, "He needs to go in the ambulance."

21:22:45: Grundy said to Curtis, "They say you gotta go in the ambulance." Curtis spoke closely to Grundy for a few seconds, which was inaudible on the bodycam videos. Curtis then turned around and again started walking towards his home, holding the right pocket of his pants. He was wearing very large, loose-fitting sweat shorts. Grundy told the officers, "He said he gotta get something."

21:22:50: Officer D'Avila followed a few steps behind Curtis and asked, "Eric, what you gotta get, bro?" Curtis didn't respond but instead kept walking.

21:23:00: Officer D'Avila stepped in front of Curtis when he was about ten feet from the front door. He put his right hand on Curtis's chest, halting him and preventing him from continuing on into his home. Officer Wakefield from behind then grabbed Curtis's right arm. Grundy also held his torso. Officer D'Avila told Curtis, "You're delirious right now, my man. I just need you to sit down and breathe and let HFD come check you out before you do anything, OK?" Curtis responded, "OK," with an apparent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ndudzi v. Perez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 29 Septiembre 2020
    ... ... 5:20-CV-108United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Laredo Division.Signed September 29, 2020490 F.Supp.3d 1177 Brian E ... Thornburg LLP, South Bend, IN, Charles Roth, National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, IL, Curtis Francis Doebbler, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Service, San Antonio, TX, r petitioner.Hector Carlos Ramirez, United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, for Respondents.MEMORANDUM AND ... ...
  • Massey v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 3 Marzo 2022
    ...lawful authority. Id.Likewise, the district court attached weight to the absence of a request for consent in United States v. Curtis , 490 F. Supp. 3d 1183, 1196 (S.D. Tex. 2020), appeal dismissed , No. 20-20570, 2020 WL 9425159 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2020). "One thing that didn't happen is obv......
  • Massey v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 3 Marzo 2022
    ...thing that didn't happen is obvious-no officer or other personnel on the scene ever asked [the appellant] for permission to enter his home." Id. "That failure of specific request weighs against a finding of voluntary consent here." Id. In the absence of any request for consent, the court he......
  • Massey v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 9 Diciembre 2021
    ..."One thing that didn't happen is obvious-no officer or other personnel on the scene ever asked Curtis for permission to enter his home." Id. "That failure of specific request weighs against a finding of voluntary consent here." Id. In the absence of any request for consent, the court held t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT