United States v. Dixson
| Decision Date | 28 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-20305 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DOMINIQUE DIXSON, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
DENYING DEFENDANT DOMINIQUE DIXSON'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OF A VEHICLE SEARCH (Dkt. 38), MOTIONS FOR REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDER (Dkts. 59, 76), MOTIONS TO DISMISS BASED ON ENTRAPMENT BY ESTOPPEL (Dkts. 60, 75), AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (Dkt. 74)
Defendant Dominique Dixson was indicted on the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm stemming from an investigation that began when federal agents saw pictures of Dixson at a local gun range on his Instagram account. Dixson has filed a number of motions both pro se and through counsel seeking to suppress evidence, dismiss the indictment, and revoke his detention order. For the reasons discussed below, Dixson's motions are denied.
The Government's investigation into Dixson began when an agent viewed Dixson's Instagram account, "kiing_messiah." Compl. ¶ 7 (Dkt. 7). Instagram is a widely used mobile phone app used to share digital photos and videos. Some of those photos showed Dixson at Action Impact, a firearm shop and gun range, holding up shooting-practice targets. Resp. at 5 (Dkt. 50). This caught the agent's attention because, as a felon, Dixson is not legally allowed to possess firearms. Based on Dixson's photos, agents visited Action Impact and learned that Dixson and his wife had purchased a Taurus, G2C, 9mm caliber, semi-automatic pistol, along with an extended magazine. Id. at 5-6. Video surveillance showed Dixson firing the weapon at Action Impact. Id. at 7. Based on the evidence from Action Impact, agents secured a search warrant and later arrested Dixson during a traffic stop and found the Taurus 9mm firearm in the glovebox shortly thereafter. Id. at 10-11.
Dixson has filed a motion to suppress evidence of a vehicle search (Dkt. 38), two motions for revocation of detention order (Dkts. 59, 76), two motions to dismiss based on entrapment by estoppel (Dkts. 60, 75), and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Dkt. 74).1 Dixson's motions will be taken in turn.
Dixson moves to suppress the gun found in his vehicle after a warrantless search of his vehicle. Mot. at 1. The Government argues that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement defeats Dixson's argument. Resp. at 16-17 (Dkt. 50).2 The Government is correct.
As noted above, Dixson's Instagram posts led agents to investigate his activities at Action Impact. After investigating the matter, agents recovered video evidence that Dixson and his wife purchased and used a Taurus 9mm at the Action Impact gun range. Resp. at 6. The firearm was kept in a black pouch. Id. Further evidence showed that Dixson purchased an extended magazinefor the firearm. Id. Based on the evidence, agents secured a search warrant for Dixson's home and a warrant for his arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Id. at 8.
On April 30, 2019, Dixson posted a video to his Instagram account of himself in his vehicle rapping and flashing what the agents suspected was the extended magazine. Id. at 9. The following day, Dixson posted another video of himself in his vehicle rapping with the extended magazine in his lap. Id. That same day, agents observed Dixson entering his vehicle carrying a small black pouch, which appeared to be the same one used to carry the Taurus 9mm. Id. The agents saw Dixson making several motions on the passenger side of the vehicle and then drive away. Id. Warren police officers conducted a traffic stop shortly thereafter. Id. at 10. Dixson refused to unlock his car door at first. Id. After officers attempted to break the car window, Dixson opened the car doors and was arrested. Id.
According to Dixson, the arresting officers searched his car at the time of his arrest, but did not find any firearms. He says that his car was brought back to his home, where the officers executed the search warrant. The agents also searched Dixson's vehicle again, which revealed the Taurus 9mm in the glovebox. The Government does not address this gap in time. However, the gap in time is not relevant to the automobile exception, because the officers had probable cause to search Dixson's vehicle.
The Fourth Amendment provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "[S]earches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions." Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454 (1971) (internal marks and citations omitted).One such exception, the automobile exception, has been invoked by the Government in this case to justify the search of Dixson' car.
The Government argues that the automobile exception relieved the agents of the warrant requirement. Dixson did not file a reply brief in support of his motion addressing the automobile exception. Near the end of his brief in support of his motion, however, Dixson passingly asserts that the arresting officers did not have "reasonable" cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of the alleged crime, especially in light of no evidence being uncovered during the first search. Mot. at 3-4. Dixson is mistaken.
The Sixth Circuit has consistently held that no exigent circumstances are required to search a vehicle where probable cause exists to do so. See, e.g., United States v. Hofstatter, 8 F.3d 316, 322 (6th Cir. 1993). "Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." United States v. Lumpkin, 159 F.3d 983, 986 (6th Cir. 1998) (internal marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. Graham, 275 F.3d 490, 510 (6th Cir. 2001) ().
Here, the agents had probable cause to believe the firearm would be located in Dixson's vehicle. They knew that he and his wife had recently purchased the Taurus 9mm—along with a black pouch to carry the firearm—and an extended magazine. Dixson posted two videos shortly before his arrest showing himself in his vehicle with what appeared to be the extended magazine. Agents also saw Dixson leave his home with the black bag used to carry the Taurus 9mm. Dixson was seen making movements on the passenger side of his vehicle shortly before driving away from his home. After the officers conducted the traffic stop, Dixson refused to unlock his doors and didso only after the officers attempted to break his car windows. Agents had both a warrant for Dixson's arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and a search warrant to search his home for the firearm. Based on this information, there was a fair probability that the Taurus 9mm would be found in his vehicle's glove box.
Because agents had probable cause to search for a firearm in Dixson's vehicle, under the automobile exception, no search warrant of the vehicle was required. Dixson's motion to suppress evidence of the vehicle search is denied.
Dixson moves to revoke his detention order entered on May 6, 2019 (Dkt. 11).3 Dixson's recounting of the procedural history in his motion is somewhat difficult to follow. He says that after Magistrate Judge Grand entered the order of detention that he filed the present motion. However, that recounting ignores that this is the second such motion filed by Dixson. His first motion was filed on May 17, 2019 (Dkt. 17).
The Court held a hearing on Dixson's initial motion for revocation of his detention order on May 31, 2019, and the Court subsequently issued a thirteen-page opinion denying Dixson's motion on June 12, 2019 (Dkt. 41). Dixson's present motion does not acknowledge the Court's previous opinion denying revocation of detention, nor does he analyze the four factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Dixson, acting pro se, also filed a third motion seeking revocation of his detention order (Dkt. 76).4 Although Dixson engages in a more thorough analysis in his pro semotion, he again ignores the Court's previous order and the reasoning therein. Because Dixson has not advanced any new facts or identified any defects in the Court's prior ruling, Dixson's motions (Dkts. 59, 76) are denied for the reasons stated in the Court's prior ruling (Dkt. 41).
Dixson argues that the indictment should be dismissed due to entrapment by estoppel, because an employee at Action Impact gun range—assertedly a government agent—authorized Dixson to use a firearm at the gun range. Br. in Supp. of Mot. at 2-3 (Dkt. 60-1); see also Dixson's pro se motion (Dkt. 75). In response, the Government makes two principal arguments: (i) the employee was not, as a matter of law, a federal agent, and alternatively, (ii) resolution of this issue is not appropriate on a pre-trial motion to dismiss. Resp. at 1-2. While the first argument is well supported, the more prudent course is to defer this matter for trial, in accordance with the Government's second argument. Therefore, Dixson's motions are denied, without prejudice to his raising this issue at trial in an appropriate fashion.
The defense of entrapment by estoppel applies when a defendant relies on a government actor's incorrect advice that his actions would be lawful. Cox v. State of La., 379 U.S. 559, 571 (1965). To prove the defense, "a defendant must show that: (1) a...
To continue reading
Request your trial