United States v. Fuller
| Decision Date | 11 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14–cr–20677 |
| Citation | 120 F.Supp.3d 669 |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Antonio Amar Fuller, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Andrew J. Lievense, U.S. Attorney's Office, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.
Federal Defender, Federal Defender Office, Detroit, MI, for Defendant.
On October 11, 2014, Defendant Antonio Fuller ("Fuller") was walking alongside a road in Superior Township when two Washtenaw County Sheriff Deputies stopped him for questioning. The deputies were seeking to execute an outstanding arrest warrant against a man named Gerald Warlix ("Warlix"), and one of the deputies mistakenly believed that Fuller was Warlix. Fuller informed the deputies that he was not Warlix and produced identification confirming that fact. Nonetheless, the deputies continued to detain Fuller in order to check whether there were any outstanding warrants for Fuller. While one of the deputies conducted the warrant check, the other deputy approached Fuller to perform a pat down search. Fuller stated that he did not consent to being patted down, and when the deputy touched Fuller's arm, Fuller fled on foot. The deputies eventually caught Fuller, subdued him, and found a loaded handgun in Fuller's pocket. Because Fuller had previously been convicted of a felony, he was not permitted to possess the gun.
The government has charged Fuller with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (See ECF # 7.) Fuller has now moved to suppress all of the evidence seized from his person on October 11, 2014 (the "Motion to Suppress"). (See ECF # 14.) The Court concludes that the deputies had no lawful basis to continue detaining Fuller after they determined that he was not Warlix and that the evidence seized from Fuller was the fruit of the unlawful continued detention. The Court further determines that suppression is the appropriate remedy for this Fourth Amendment violation. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Fuller's Motion to Suppress.
The Court held evidentiary hearings on the Motion to Suppress on February 6 and March 9, 2015. (See Hearing Transcript I, ECF # 23, and Hearing Transcript II, ECF # 24.) Fuller was present for the hearing, but he did not testify. Based on all of the evidence presented at the hearings, the Court makes the following factual findings:1
A. While Looking for Warlix, the Deputies Detained Fuller and Quickly Determined That He Was Not Warlix
1. On the evening of October 11, 2014, Washtenaw County Sheriff Deputies Joseph Montgomery ("Deputy Montgomery") and Paul Corrie ("Deputy Corrie," collectively the "Deputies") were on patrol near MacArthur Boulevard and Wiard Boulevard in Superior Township, Michigan. (See Tr. I at 7–10, 67; Pg. ID 132–35, 192.) They were in full uniform and were driving a marked Washtenaw County Sheriff's vehicle. (See id . at 11–12, Pg. ID 136–37.)
2. The Deputies were looking for a man named Gerald Warlix. (See id. ) Warlix was a suspect in a stolen vehicle investigation, and a warrant had been issued for Warlix's arrest. (See id. )
3. Deputy Montgomery was familiar with Warlix because he had previously arrested Warlix on Wiard Boulevard. (See id. at 12–13, Pg. ID 137–38.)
4. As Deputy Corrie drove the vehicle on Wiard Boulevard, Deputy Montgomery observed a black man walking along the side of the road. (See id. at 12, Pg. ID 137.)
5. Deputy Montgomery thought that the pedestrian was Warlix. (See id. at 13, Pg. ID 138.) The pedestrian was the same race and approximately the same height, weight, and age as Warlix, and the pedestrian was walking in approximately the same area as Montgomery's prior interaction with Warlix. (See id. at 13, Pg. ID 138.)
6. Deputy Montgomery told Deputy Corrie that he thought that the pedestrian was Warlix. (See id. at 14, Pg. ID 139.)
7. The pedestrian was not Warlix; he was Fuller. (See id. at 19, Pg. ID 144.)
8. Deputy Corrie pulled the vehicle to the side of the road and parked the vehicle in front of Fuller. (See id. at 14–15, Pg. ID 139–40.) Deputy Montgomery then exited the vehicle, approached Fuller, and began speaking to him. (See id. at 15, Pg. ID 140.)
9. The manner in which Deputy Montgomery communicated with Fuller indicated to Fuller—from the very beginning of their encounter—that Fuller was required to engage with him (Deputy Montgomery).2 (See id . at 62, Pg. ID 187.)
10. Deputy Montgomery addressed Fuller as "Gerald Warlix." (See id. at 15, Pg. ID 140.)
11. Fuller responded that he was not Warlix, and he identified himself as "Antonio Fuller." (See id. at 15, Pg. ID 140.)
12. Deputy Montgomery, who had been joined by Deputy Corrie on the side of Wiard Boulevard, asked Fuller to produce identification. (See id. at 16–17, Pg. ID 141–42.)
13. Fuller handed Deputy Montgomery his identification, and Deputy Montgomery reviewed the identification. (See id. at 18–19, Pg. ID 143–44.) The identification indicated to Deputy Montgomery that the person to whom he was speaking was Fuller. (See id. )
14. As soon as Deputy Montgomery completed his review of Fuller's identification, he was satisfied that person with whom he was speaking was Fuller and was not Warlix. (See id. ; see also id. at 45, Pg. ID 170.) At that point, Deputy Montgomery had completed the task that he set out to accomplish when he initiated the stop.
15. Deputy Corrie heard Fuller identify himself as Fuller and not Warlix. (See id. at 74–75, Pg. ID 199–200.) Deputy Corrie was also satisfied that the person with whom Deputy Montgomery was speaking was Fuller and not Warlix. (See id. ; see also id. at 95, Pg. ID 220.) Deputy Corrie had never met Fuller and was not familiar with Fuller's name. (See id. at 74, Pg. ID 199.)
B. Deputy Montgomery Recognized Fuller's Name Because One Year Earlier Deputy Montgomery Had Investigated Assault Allegations Against Fuller. But at the Time the Deputies Stopped Fuller, Deputy Montgomery Did Not Know Whether Fuller Had Ever Been Charged for the Alleged Assault
16. Deputy Montgomery recognized Fuller's name. (See id. at 18, Pg. ID 143.) Deputy Montgomery recalled that he had been the officer in charge of an investigation in which Fuller had been a suspect. (See id. at 19, Pg. ID 144.)
17. Specifically, Deputy Montgomery remembered that in November 2013, he received a complaint that Fuller had physically assaulted a young man during a game of pick-up basketball (the "November 2013 Incident"). (See id. at 21–22, Pg. ID 146–47.) The complaint also alleged that Fuller threatened the young man by wielding a knife and lifting up his shirt to reveal a handgun in the waistband of his pants. (See id. ) Deputy Montgomery took the statements of witnesses and submitted a report about the November 2013 Incident to the Washtenaw County Prosecuting Attorney (the "Prosecuting Attorney"). (See id. at 22, Pg. ID 147.)
18. By March 2014, the Prosecuting Attorney still had not issued any charges against Fuller in connection with the November 2013 Incident. That month, the Prosecuting Attorney asked Deputy Montgomery to conduct additional investigative work on the case. Specifically, the Prosecuting Attorney directed Deputy Montgomery to contact the alleged victim and obtain a better description of the knife that Fuller allegedly brandished. (See id. at 24, Pg. ID 149.)
19. The March 2014 request from the Prosecuting Attorney—asking Deputy Montgomery to gather additional information—was the last thing that Deputy Montgomery recalled hearing from the Prosecuting Attorney about the November 2013 Incident. (See id. at 46, Pg. ID 171.)
C. Even Though Deputy Montgomery Had No Idea Whether Fuller Had Been Charged With Any Crime Nor Whether There Was an Outstanding Warrant for Fuller, Deputy Montgomery Decided to Continue to Detain Fuller to Run a Warrant Check
20. As Deputy Montgomery spoke to Fuller on the side of Wiard Boulevard on October 11, 2014, Deputy Montgomery had no idea whether Fuller had been charged with any crime in connection with the November 2013 Incident.3 (See Tr. II at 17, Pg. ID 288.) In fact, Deputy Montgomery asked Fuller about the status of the investigation because he (Deputy Montgomery) did not know whether there was an outstanding warrant for Fuller. (See Tr. I at 25, Pg. ID 150; see also Tr. II at 28, Pg. ID 299.)
21. Deputy Montgomery nonetheless decided to continue to detain, and did continue to detain, Fuller in order to check whether Fuller had an outstanding arrest warrant. (See Tr. I at 49, Pg. ID 174; see also id. at 44, Pg. ID 169 ("he's not free to leave until I determine [whether] he has a warrant").)
22. At the time Deputy Montgomery decided to conduct the warrant check, he did not affirmatively believe that there was an outstanding warrant for Fuller; he simply did not know whether Fuller was the subject of an outstanding warrant.4 (See, e.g., Tr. I at 24, 46, 49; Pg. ID 149, 171, 174; see also Tr. II at 26, 28–29, Pg. ID 297, 299–300.)
23. At the point Deputy Montgomery decided to continue his detention of Fuller to run the warrant check, the Deputies had no reason to believe that Fuller had committed any criminal conduct on the day of the encounter—i.e., on October 11, 2014. (See id. at 49, 95; Pg. ID 174, 220.) Fuller's behavior during the encounter did not make the Deputies suspicious that Fuller was engaged in criminal activity. (See id. )
24. Moreover, Fuller complied with all of Deputy Montgomery's instructions up to the point that Deputy Montgomery decided to run the warrant check. (See id. )
D. Deputy Montgomery Began to Conduct a Pat Down Search of Fuller, Fuller Fled on Foot, and the Deputies Caught and Arrested Him
25. Deputy Montgomery handed Fuller's identification to Deputy Corrie so that Deputy Corrie could run the warrant check. (See Tr. I at 18, Pg. ID 143.)
26. While Deputy Corrie began running the warrant check,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coleman
...courts have continued to refer to the majority rule without addressing the impact of Rodriguez. See, e.g., United States v. Fuller, 120 F.Supp.3d 669, 681–82, 685 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (citing Rodriguez without analysis); State v. Hollister, No. 112,983, 2016 WL 197742, at *8 (Kan. Ct. App. Jan......
-
State v. Wintermeyer
...the defendant. See Michigan v. Chesternut , 486 U.S. 567, 575, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988), fn. 7 ; United States v. Fuller , 120 F.Supp.3d 669, 677–78 (E.D.Mich.2015) ; State v. Lunce , 12th Dist. No. CA2000–10–209, 2001 WL 530541 (May 21, 2001). Here, Officer Wise confirmed the......
-
Taylor v. Schwarzhuber
...Warlix, he could not “further detain [the] suspect in order to obtain additional information through a warrant check or records review.” Id. at 68184. this conclusion, the court relied on a case from the Sixth Circuit, United States v. Davis, 430 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 2005). There, Davis was s......
-
Bey v. Falk, Case No. 14-13743
...or collectively, do not amount to an objectively reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory stop. Citing United States v. Fuller, 120 F.Supp.3d 669, 679 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (citing United States v. McSwain, 29 F.3d 558 (10th Cir. 1994). It is clear that the Wayne County Circuit judge pr......