United States v. Franklin

• Decision Date: 20 January 2023
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL ACTION 4:20-CR-278-SDJ-CAN-1
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT LEON FRANKLIN, III (1)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT LEON FRANKLIN, III (1)

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 4:20-CR-278-SDJ-CAN-1

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

January 20, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHRISTINE A. NOWAK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Robert Leon Franklin, III's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Dkt. 58]. On September 26, 2022 an evidentiary hearing (“Hearing”) was held on the pending Motion, and the undersigned heard oral argument from both the Government and Defendant. After considering the Motion, all relevant filings and evidence, as well as the oral argument of counsel at Hearing, the Court recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Dkt. 58] be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On April 13, 2022, Defendant was charged by First Superseding Indictment in three counts [Dkt. 45]. Count One charges a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), Possession with the Intent to Distribute or Dispense Cocaine; Count Two charges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime; and Count Three charges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Possession of Ammunition by a Prohibited Person. Each of these charges stem from a traffic stop of Defendant conducted on February 22, 2019.

The Traffic Stop

On or about February 22, 2019, Cooke County Police Officer Bart Smith (“Officer Smith”) initiated a traffic stop of Defendant for driving without a front license plate. Defendant pulled his vehicle, a white BMW sedan, to the side of the highway. Officer Smith then approached the vehicle from the driver's side [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 00:20]. As Officer Smith approached, Defendant stuck his arms and upper body out of the driver's side window and advised Officer Smith a firearm was present in the vehicle's backseat [Gov Exhibit 1 at 00:20]. Defendant also advised Officer Smith that he did not have a driver's license and was, in fact, on probation for driving without a license [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 01:00]. Officer Smith requested identification, which Defendant voluntarily provided [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 01:04]. Officer Smith inquired as to the owner of the gun; Defendant admitted the gun was his [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 01:20-01:21]. Officer Smith requested permission to retrieve the firearm from the backseat and Defendant him allowed him to do so [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 01:25-01:44]. Officer Smith then returned to his patrol car to run a check on the gun and Defendant [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 01:46].

Officer Smith reapproached Defendant's vehicle on the passenger side [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 07:18]. Officer Smith asked Defendant to exit the vehicle; Defendant complied [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 07:27-07:35]. Upon exiting the vehicle, Defendant opened the trunk of the vehicle and joined Officer Smith there [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 07:45]. Officer Smith asked Defendant if he had any guns on his person; Defendant replied in the negative [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 07:49]. Officer Smith proceeded to perform a pat-down search on Defendant [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 07:52]. Officer Smith and Defendant continued to discuss the reason for the stop and Defendant's criminal history [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 08:00-09:20]. The following exchange occurs:^[1]

Officer: Do you have a felony on your record at all?

Defendant: Nothing.

Officer: So you can have that gun?

Defendant: Yes. Oh no, I'm not a felon at all.

Officer: Here is what I am going to tell you. If you don't have a felony on your record, which is going to hit you with this gun, I am going to write you a citation for your license being bad but I'm not going to take you to jail.

Defendant: Okay, no I don't have a felony.

Officer: That way you still have to answer for it but you don't have to go to jail for it.

Defendant: That is going to violate my probation.

Officer: I mean, what do you expect, what do you expect me to do?

Defendant: I mean, just, it's just for the license plates, I wasn't speeding, I wasn't doing anything bad, I'm just trying to take my car home. You won't see me in this car, you won't see me on this highway again. [Defendant continues to try and persuade Officer Burr not to write him a ticket]

Officer: You ever do any kind of drugs, man?

Defendant: No, sir.

Officer: Weed? Anything?

Defendant: No. I don't smoke any weed.

Officer: You don't mind if I search your car?

Defendant: There is no drugs in my car

Officer: You mind if I search your car?

Defendant: It is my wife's car

Officer: Yes or no?

Defendant: Go right ahead.

Officer: Can I search?

Defendant: Go right ahead.

Officer: Alright, just hang out. I'm going to make sure there are no drugs in your car. As long as you're good I'll work with ya. Okay. I am not here to ruin your life over no license. If there is something though you just need to tell me. You're acting like you're upset.

*Defendant inaudible*

Defendant: I want to just say give me the ticket. But. I know.

Officer: So do you got something in your car?

Defendant: No, sir. I just have that gun in my car.

Officer: Is there anything in your pockets?

Defendant: No sir. There is nothing on me.

Officer: Do you mind if I check your pockets?

Defendant: Go right ahead

*Officer Smith checks Defendant's pockets*

[Gov. Exhibit 1 at 09:23-11:45]. After this conversation, Officer Smith asked Defendant to stand by his patrol car and proceeded to search Defendant's vehicle [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 12:30]. Officer Smith is advised over the radio that Defendant has prior felony arrests [Gov. Exhibit at 14:00].

Officer Smith approached Defendant and detained him, placing him in handcuffs [Gov. Exhibit at 14:45, 16:56-17:55]. Cooke County Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Christopher Burr (“Officer Burr”) arrived at the scene [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 18:25]. Defendant was placed under arrest for a class B misdemeanor, driving without a license [Gov. Exhibit 1 at 25:41]. Defendant was placed in Officer Smith's patrol car and transported to the jail.

The “Inventory” Search

After Officer Smith departed the scene with Defendant, Officer Burr completed a further search of the vehicle [Gov. Exhibit 2]. During the search, Officer Burr was accompanied by a man from the company that would tow the truck back to station. Throughout the bodycam footage, the two men are making conversation [Gov. Exhibit 2]. Around four minutes into the footage, Officer Burr begins to search the already opened trunk [Gov. Exhibit 2]. Specifically, Officer Burr lifted the floor mat and opened the side compartments [Gov. Exhibit 2 at 04:45-05:30]. Next, Officer Burr moved an after-market speaker box located in the trunk [Gov. Exhibit 2 at 05:40]. He moved the speaker box by pushing it out of the way-he did not lift it, and he did not attempt to open it. He observed a Crown Royal bag behind the speaker box and retrieved it [Gov. Exhibit 2 at 05:45]. Upon opening the bag, he observed a substance believed to be cocaine, as well as scales [Gov. Exhibit. 2 at 06:00-06:35].

The Motion to Suppress

On August 25, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Suppress, seeking suppression of “unlawfully obtained evidence seized from Defendant's motor vehicle on or about February 22, 2019” [Dkt. 58 at 1]. Defendant's Motion argues that the evidence obtained during the searches of his vehicle must be suppressed on numerous grounds, including that (1) the plain view doctrine does not apply, (2) search incident to arrest does not apply, (3) the inventory search exception does not apply, and (4) the automobile exception is inapplicable [Dkt. 58]. Defendant summarizes, “[s]aid search was not the result of a valid consent by the Defendant. Further, the scope of said search exceeded that authorized by any consent given, by authority to search incident to arrest or by any search pursuant to inventory” [Dkt. 58 at 3]. The Government filed its Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress on September 14, 2022 [Dkt. 64]. The Government urges that the Motion must be denied [Dkt. 64 at 1].

An evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Suppress was held on September 26, 2022 [Dkt. 68]. At Hearing, the Parties agreed Defendant was the owner of the vehicle, a traffic stop was initiated, and Defendant was ultimately arrested for driving while license invalid [Dkt. 71 at 6]. The Government further confirmed it did not advance three of the warrantless search exceptions referenced by Defendant, specifically the plain view doctrine, search incident to arrest, or automobile exception. Accordingly, the Parties concurred the issues presented for consideration were the validity of consent (and the scope thereof) and the inventory search exception [Dkt. 71 at 4-7]. At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Court found consent was given and not revoked [Dkt. 71 at 39]. The Court directed the Parties to file supplemental briefing regarding the scope of consent [Dkt. 71 at 39]. The Parties' supplemental briefing was filed on October 3, 2022 [Dkts. 69; 70], and the official Hearing transcript was docketed on October 14, 2022 [Dkt. 71].

ANALYSIS

To reiterate, Defendant moves to suppress all evidence obtained from the search of his vehicle on February 22, 2019. Defendant urges the Court to find the search of his vehicle was not the result of a valid consent, or that the scope of any consent was exceeded, and that the inventory search was unlawful.

Fourth Amendment Protections Against Warrantless Searches

The Fourth Amendment protects “[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. “[T]he fundamental inquiry under the Fourth Amendment is whether a search was reasonable.” United States v. Barber, -- F.Supp.3d. --, 2022 WL 2841481, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 20, 2022) (citing United States v. Knights, 534 U.S....