United States v. Felder
| Decision Date | 21 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Action No. 19-343 (CCC) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LEONARD FELDER Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Presently before the Court is defendant Leonard Felder's ("Felder") motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and seeking additional relief, including requests for the Court to compel the Government to produce evidence under the Government's disclosure requirements and for leave to file additional pre-trial motions. ECF No. 10. The Government filed a brief in opposition. ECF No. 11. The parties also submitted additional briefing regarding supplemental authority. ECF Nos. 16 and 19. The Court has considered all of the submissions and exhibits before it. For the reasons expressed below, Felder's motion is hereby denied with respect to his request to suppress evidence and his request for early disclosure of materials, and is granted only to the extent he seeks leave, if necessary, to file additional pre-trial motions.
On or around March 30, 2019, Officers Reddick and Donker of the Newark Police Department were on patrol and observed a double-parked red Chevy sport-utility vehicle (the "Vehicle"). ECF No. 10-1 at 3. Officer Reddick ran a check of the Vehicle's license plate and discovered the vehicle's owner had an expired license. Id. The Vehicle was registered to Shanda Jackson, later discovered to be Felder's girlfriend. Id. at 9. The officers turned on their overhead lights and sirens to initiate a traffic stop, then exited their patrol car and approached the Vehicle. Id. at 4. Officer Reddick approached the driver, later identified as Felder, and asked for his license, registration, and proof of insurance. Id. Felder provided Officer Reddick with his license and insurance card, but indicated he did not have the Vehicle's registration. Id. As Officer Reddick spoke with Felder, he observed two white square items wrapped in white paper in Felder's open left hoodie pocket, which Officer Reddick identified as two bricks1 of heroin based on his experience. Id. Officer Reddick then asked Felder to exit the Vehicle, but Felder attempted to start the Vehicle instead. Id. Officer Reddick opened the door and grabbed Felder's arm in an attempt to remove Felder from the Vehicle. Id. Felder was, however, able to put the Vehicle into drive and carried Officer Reddick a short distance. Id.
While the Vehicle was in motion, Officer Reddick observed Felder take his right hand off of the steering wheel and drop something near the center console of the Vehicle. Id. Officer Reddick struck Felder and managed to halt the Vehicle. Id. After the Vehicle came to rest, a male in the front passenger seat fled from the Vehicle and Officer Donker gave chase. Id. Officer Reddick removed Felder from the Vehicle, took him to the ground, and placed him in handcuffs. Officer Donker was unable to locate the male passenger. Id. Officer Reddick searched Felder and recovered three bricks of heroin from his person. Id. Officer Reddick also checked the center console area and recovered a Taurus 9-millimiter handgun (the "Weapon"). A further search of the Vehicle revealed a shoe-box in the rear of the Vehicle containing a large quantity ofammunition. Id. Detective Richiez then arrived at the scene to obtain a statement from Felder and advised Officer Reddick that the Vehicle would be towed pending a search warrant. Id.
A. Fourth Amendment Claims
Felder argues that the Court should suppress the Weapon and ammunition recovered from the Vehicle because Officer Reddick searched the Vehicle without a warrant. ECF No. 10-2 at 4. Although there are a number of well-known exceptions to the warrant requirement, Felder argues that they are not applicable in this case. First, Felder argues that the "plain view" exception does not apply because the Weapon was entirely concealed from view until Officer Reddick unlawfully entered the Vehicle, therefore "[a]ny observation came as a result of a warrantless search, not plain view observation. Id. at 5. Next, Felder argues that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement does not apply because Officer Reddick did not have probable cause to believe there was contraband in the Vehicle and because Felder was handcuffed and placed in a police vehicle when Officer Reddick searched the Vehicle illegally. Id. at 6-7. Finally, Felder argues that the Weapon and ammunition recovered from the Vehicle should be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine as they were obtained as the fruit of an unlawful search. Id. at 7.
The Government responds that the Weapon and ammunition were lawfully seized. ECF No. 11 at 4. The Government notes that the initial encounter between Officer Reddick and Felder did not implicate the Fourth Amendment as law enforcement officers may approach individuals in public places, such as in a vehicle on the street, without any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Id. at 3. Additionally, if the initial encounter is viewed as a motor vehicle stop governed by the Fourth Amendment, the Government maintains that Officer Reddick had probable cause to conduct such a stop for two independent reasons: (1) the Vehicle was double-parked illegally, and(2) the registered owner of the Vehicle had an expired license. Id. Next, the Government argues that it is well-settled that law enforcement officers may direct a driver to exit a vehicle during a traffic stop, and that Felder's attempt to drive away while dragging Officer Reddick constitutes an additional reason for Felder's arrest. Id. at 4. The Government thus contends that Officer Reddick had probable cause to arrest Felder and search his person based on Felder's attempt to flee, leading to the seizure of the bricks of heroin in Felder's pocket. Id. According to the Government, the discovery of the heroin bricks, as well as Officer Reddick's observation that Felder dropped something near the center console, then provided justification for Reddick to search the inside of the Vehicle as a valid search incident to the arrest. Id. at 4-5. The Government further argues, under the circumstances, it was reasonable to believe additional contraband would be found in the center console, and that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which holds that there is a reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle and allows officers to search a vehicle for additional contraband after initially discovering contraband, is applicable here. Id. at 6.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. To prevail on a motion to suppress, a defendant generally bears the burden of proving the challenged search or seizure was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Acosta, 965 F.2d 1248, 1257 n.5 (3d Cir. 1992) (). However, once the defendant has established a basis for his motion, i.e., that the search or seizure was conducted without a warrant, the burden shifts to the government to show that the search or seizure was reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 63 F.3d 242, 245 (3d Cir. 1995). TheGovernment must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence is admissible. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 178 n.14 (1974).
We begin by examining whether Office Reddick's initial encounter with Felder violated Felder's rights. "It is well-established that police officers who lack reasonable suspicion may approach and question people seated in vehicles in public places." United States v. Williams, 413 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005). Felder does not challenge this proposition in his briefs, and thus there is no dispute that that Officer Reddick acted in accordance with the law when he approached Felder in the Vehicle which was double-parked on a public street. See United States v. Hester, 161 F. Supp. 3d 338, 344 (D.N.J. 2016) (). Additionally, however, Officer Reddick had a reasonable basis to stop Felder because the Vehicle was parked illegally. See Hester, 161 F. Supp. at 347 (D.N.J. 2016) (quoting United States v. Delfin-Colina, 464 F.3d 392, 397 (3d Cir. 2006) (); see also United States v. Richardson, 504 F. App'x 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2012) (); United States v. Coleman, 603 F.3d 496, 499 (8th Cir. 2010) ().2
As Officer Reddick lawfully approached Felder in the Vehicle on a public street and as Officer Reddick had a reasonable basis to question Felder based on the fact that the Vehicle was parked illegally, there is a little question that the motion to suppress must be denied. The United States Supreme Court has clearly stated that "circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle." Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343-44 (2009) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial