United States v. Daniel
| Decision Date | 07 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:16 CR 6 SNLJ (ACL) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MIKEEM DANIEL, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Pending before the undersigned is Defendant Mikeem Daniel's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements (Doc. 35) obtained following a stop of a vehicle he was driving on November 18, 2015. Daniel argues that the officers lacked specific and articulable facts to justify a Terry stop. Id. at 2. He also claims that Terry did not justify the removal of Daniel from the vehicle and use of handcuffs. Id. at 3. Daniel further argues that police officers lacked probable cause or voluntary consent to conduct the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle. Finally, Daniel claims that his later statements were fruit of the unlawful stop and search. Id. Daniel requests the suppression of all evidence seized from the vehicle and the statements he made during two separate interrogations, as well as cash seized from the sole passenger. Id. at 3-4. The Government filed a Brief in opposition to Daniel's claims. (Doc. 41.) After an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 54), both parties submitted memoranda. (Docs. 59, 62, 67.)
In consideration of the pleadings identified above, as well as all exhibits admitted into evidence, the undersigned recommends that the following findings of fact and conclusions of law be adopted and that the Daniel's Motion to Suppress be denied.
On November 18, 2015, close to 11:30 p.m., a 911 call was received by the Perryville Police Dispatcher regarding an armed robbery. Within the first minute of the call, the following exchange took place:
Dispatcher: 911, what is your emergency?
911 Caller: Uhhh, St. Joe's General Store, I just got robbed at gunpoint.
Dispatcher: Hold on.
911 Caller: Please hurry! Please hurry!
Dispatcher: We are, I'm just calling about it now.
911 Caller: He's going to come back and f—ing kill me—he took my wallet!
Dispatch: We've got an armed burglary, St. Joe's General Store...
Dispatcher: Is he still there?
911 Caller: No, he left in a white Suburban. . .
Dispatch: He just left in a white Suburban
Dispatcher: Do you know what direction of travel?
911 Caller: He's a black male. Please get somebody here.
Dispatcher: Do you know where he went? What direction?
911 Caller: He was on the road behind St. Joe and they were going toward, like the Square.
Dispatch: Suspect is a black male, driving a white Suburban
911 Caller: No he wasn't driving, there was somebody else.
Dispatch: There was somebody else driving, left in a white Suburban...
* * *
Dispatch: Caller states they were on the road behind St. Joe's General Store heading towards the Square.
(Govt. Ex. #1, DVD, file "232957sa. . ." at 00:00-01:16.) Within less than one minute, the Dispatcher advised all officers that there had been an armed burglary at the St. Joe's General Store; and that the robber, a black male, fled in a white Suburban that was driven by someone else. Another twenty seconds later the direction of travel was dispatched.
Perry County Deputy Rusty Farrar was one of the officers listening to the dispatches. He was parked at a convenience store located approximately one mile from the St. Joe's General Store. He immediately headed south on North Perryville Road, toward the Store, at which time he spotted a white Suburban in the oncoming lane of traffic. Deputy Farrar quickly turned around and followed the white Suburban. He was able to stop the Suburban less than two minutes after the 911 call had been initiated. He called out the traffic stop on his radio.
Just before the stop, Deputy Farrar encountered only three other cars in addition to the Suburban. Two of the cars were in front of him before he turned around to follow the Suburban. He then passed a third car in the oncoming traffic lane just moments before following the Suburban onto Old St. Mary's Road. Otherwise, no additional traffic was observed on one of the town's main thoroughfares when Deputy Farrar saw the Suburban.2 See Def's. Ex. G3 at 00:00-00:31 and Govt. Ex. #4.4 It was 11:30 at night, in a small town.
Responding officers asked the Dispatcher the age of the vehicle. The 911 Caller described the getaway vehicle as "newer, it was white" and "[i]t was not a box style, it was more of a round style,. . .and it was big." (Govt. Ex. #1, DVD, file "232957sa. . ." at at 1:49-2:10). The 911 Caller's more detailed description of the Suburban was relayed within two minutes of the 911 call coming in. That description can be heard on the dash cam video recording from Deputy Farrar's patrol vehicle. Almost simultaneously, Deputy Farrar calls in the license plate number of the Suburban to the County dispatcher. The County Dispatcher replied to Deputy Farrar, "just be advised that I just got a 911 call of a white Suburban—black male in a passenger seat—could be a possible person that just robbed a store at gunpoint—be careful." (Def's. Ex. G at 01:27-01:39; Govt. Ex. #1, DVD, file "23314sa. . ." at 00:53-01:05.) Deputy Farrar stated that he'd heard the original robbery dispatch.
Approximately two minutes and twenty seconds after the Suburban was stopped, backup officers arrived and Deputy Farrar approached the driver's side of the Suburban. The driver had the window down, which allowed Deputy Farrar to see that both the driver and passenger were black males; there were no other people in the Suburban. Deputy Farrar maintained communication with the occupants of the Suburban until Perryville Police Department officers (Officer James, badge #107; and Officer Bain, badge #117) arrived on the scene and assumed control of the investigation, as they were the agency with primary jurisdiction. The driver and passenger were described as being uncooperative and would not exit the vehicle.
The Perryville officers arrived roughly six minutes after the 911 call was initiated. Around that same time, an officer asked the Dispatcher to get a description of the suspect from the 911 Caller. The Dispatcher asked the 911 Caller various questions about what happened. The caller provided the following information:
(Govt. Ex. #1, DVD, file "232957sa. . ." at 06:10-07:19.)
Shortly after Officer Bain and Officer James approached the Suburban, the officers looked into the rear windows with their flashlights. Officer James told Officer Bain that he saw a woman's wallet laying in the backseat and pointed it out. (Suppression Hearing Transcript, Doc. 54 at 33, hereinafter "Tr. at ___.") Officer Bain shone his flashlight through the window and was also able to observe the wallet "on the floorboard. . .behind the driver's seat." (Tr. 11, 18-19.) Officer Bain left the Suburban to return to the Store to communicate with the 911 Caller; he arrived back at the Store within less than eleven minutes after the 911 call was initiated. (Govt. Ex. #1, DVD, file "233916sa...")
Roughly eight minutes after the 911 call was initiated, Officer James asked the passenger to get out of the Suburban. The passenger was patted down for weapons, handcuffed and taken to a patrol car.
One minute later, roughly nine minutes after the 911 call was initiated, the driver's door was opened and Daniel exited the vehicle. Daniel communicated with two Perry County Deputies after he exited the vehicle. (Def's. Ex. G at 8:07; the dash cam video depicts only what was visible outside of the patrol car, the only audio is the dispatch communications and music playing on the patrol car's radio). Daniel was patted down by Deputy Farrar for the safety of all involved. Officer James was on the passenger side of the Suburban when Daniel was asked to exit the Suburban. Officer James then walked over to the driver's side of the Suburban. Id. at 8:11-8:21. Although Officer James steps out of view of Deputy Farrar's dash cam, the testimony of Officer James and Daniel's body language support that Officer James assumed the role of questioning Daniel.
While Officer James conversed with Daniel, Deputy Farrar placed Daniel in handcuffs. Officer James asked Daniel for consent to search the vehicle and Daniel initially replied that it wasn't his vehicle and he wouldn't give consent. Officer James advised Daniel that "since he was in operation and control of the vehicle that he could give [ ] consent and then he agreed to allow [Officer James] to search." (Tr. at 36.) See also Tr. 52-53. Daniel's facial expression and body language appears consistent with him being unhappy about being asked to exit the vehicle; he raised his hands out to his side in a questioning manner and he directly engages the officers in conversation in an emphatic manner. Although unhappy, Daniel cooperated with the officers once he got out of the vehicle. As he continues to communicate with the officers he nods, drops, and shakes his head during the course of the conversation.
After roughly 90 seconds of the driver's door being opened, Daniel lightly shrugged his shoulders and moved away from the open driver's door while tapping his fingertips behind his back, id. at 9:25-9:31, thereby allowing Officer James access to the driver's area of the Suburban. Officer James could not recall the exact wording of Daniel's consent, stating ...
To continue reading
Request your trial