United States v. Galtney, Crim. 19-332 (MJD/BRT)
| Docket Number | Crim. 19-332 (MJD/BRT) |
| Decision Date | 21 October 2022 |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Travis Malik Galtney, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Chelsea A. Walcker, Esq., Benjamin Bejar, Esq., United States Attorney's Office, counsel for Plaintiff.
Jordan S. Kushner, Esq., CJA, counsel for Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 17, 2022, Defendant Travis Malik Galtney was indicted via a Superseding Indictment on an additional count of being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (Doc. No. 69 Superseding Indictment.) This case is before the Court on Defendant's motions to suppress evidence and statements related his additional count from the Superseding Indictment. (Doc. Nos. 83, 84.) The matter was referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and D. Minn. LR 72.1. This Court held a motion hearing on July 21, 2022, and received five exhibits into evidence as well as testimony from Sergeants Jason Hughes and Tim Moore. (See Doc. Nos. 99, 100, 107.) For the reasons stated below, this Court recommends that Defendant's motions be denied.
On December 18, 2019, a grand jury returned an Indictment charging Defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Doc. No. 1.) The same day, the Court issued an arrest warrant for Defendant. (See Doc. No. 2; Doc. No. 100, Exhibit List for 7/21/22 Hearing, Gov't. Ex. 1.) Several weeks later, a U.S. Marshal Service Fugitive Task Force of approximately six or seven officers was assigned to locate Defendant on the arrest warrant. (Doc. No. 107, 7/21/22 Hrg. Transcript (“Tr.”) at 10-13.) Sergeant Jason Hughes was one of the task force members assigned. Pursuant to standard procedure, members of the task force received information about Defendant, including what Defendant was wanted for (felon in possession of a firearm), his vehicle description (a dark-colored Pontiac), his license plate number, and a photo of Defendant. (Id. at 1213, 20, 26.) All the task force members communicated through the same radio channel. (Id. at 11.)
On January 8, 2020, while assigned to the task force, Sergeant Hughes and the rest of the task force received broadcasted information via radio from a task force officer that a vehicle believed to be associated with Defendant had been located in Minneapolis near Golden Valley Road and Thomas Avenue North. (Id. at 10-13.) After being alerted that Defendant had possibly been located, Sergeant Hughes drove his squad car, along with other task officers, to the area of Golden Valley Road and Thomas Avenue North where a Pontiac vehicle was observed leaving the area with a black male driver and a female passenger. (Id. at 13.) The Pontiac matched the motor vehicle and license plate associated with Defendant. (Id. at 40.)
Sergeant Hughes and the other task force officers began to follow the Pontiac for several blocks. (Id. at 14.) Even though the officers determined that the driver of the Pontiac matched the description of Defendant, they continued to follow the Pontiac to “make sure” that the driver was Defendant.[1] After following the Pontiac about fifteen minutes, the Pontiac pulled along the curb of a Walmart where it parked in the area of a fire lane. (Id. at 15.) Sergeant Hughes pulled into the Walmart parking lot and parked in front of the Pontiac while other task force officers arrived. (Id.) Another task officer drove by the Pontiac and relayed via radio to the rest of the task force that the driver was Defendant. (Id. at 16, 41.) At that point, Sergeant Hughes was “[o]ver 90 percent” sure that the driver of the Pontiac was Defendant. (Id. at 16.) The officers then activated their emergency lights, drew their guns, secured the vehicle's occupants, and removed Defendant from the driver's seat. (Id. at 18.) According to Sergeant Hughes, once Defendant stepped out of the vehicle, Sergeant Hughes and the task force officers “immediately knew it was 100 percent” Defendant and arrested him. (Id. at 19.) A firearm was later found inside the car after a search was conducted pursuant to a search warrant.
On the same day as his arrest, Defendant was transported to a U.S. Marshal's cellblock at the St. Paul Courthouse where he was interviewed by Sergeant Tim Moore and Special Agent Kylie Williams. (Id. at 43-45.) The interview took place in an interview room inside the cellblock, which was divided in half by a brick wall with a screen barrier so that the officers could see and hear Defendant on the other side but could not touch him. (Id. at 46.) Defendant was let into his side of the room through a door and agreed to speak with the officers. (Id.)
Before beginning the interview, Sergeant Moore advised Defendant of his Miranda rights using the St. Paul Police Department's standard Miranda form. (Id. at 48, Gov't. Ex. 3.) Because of the screen barrier, Sergeant Moore did not pass the form but walked through it, noting Defendant's oral acknowledgment on the form in the space where an interviewee would typically initial. (Tr. 49-50; Gov't. Ex. 3.) Before proceeding with the interview, Sergeant Moore asked Defendant, “so you understand your rights?”, to which Defendant responded, “Yes.” (Gov't. Ex. 4A.)[2] Sergeant Moore made that notation, then he signed the bottom of the form and proceeded to interview Defendant. (Tr. 49-50; Gov't. Ex. 3.)
Defendant spoke with Sergeant Moore and Special Agent Williamson. (Tr. 50.) The interview lasted approximately thirty-five minutes and was recorded. (Id. at 46.) At no point during the interview did Defendant request an attorney. (Id. at 50.) Sergeant Moore testified that, based on his experience, Defendant did not appear to be under the influence of any alcohol, medication, or narcotics and that Defendant spoke in a normal cadence and did not slur his words. (Id. at 51.) Sergeant Moore also testified that Defendant appeared comfortable, made eye contact with him during the interview, was conscious while he spoke, and tracked his questioning. (Id. at 51-52.) The tone of the interview was cordial and professional and was a back-and-forth conversation. (Id. at 5960.) At no point during the interview were there any instances of violence, threats, ruses, or promises directed towards Defendant. (Id. at 60-61.) Sergeant Moore testified that during the interview Defendant made certain admissions potentially relevant to the firearms charge against him. (Id. at 53, 55.)
Defendant seeks to suppress evidence seized by the police during their warrantless search of his vehicle on January 8, 2020. He argues that the police lacked legal justification for the traffic stop. (Id. at 5.) Defendant also seeks to suppress his statements made during the interview with police asserting that police failed to establish a valid Miranda waiver. (Id. at 7.) The Government opposes both arguments. (See generally Doc. No. 118, Gov't's Opp'n to Def.'s Mots. to Suppress (“Gov't.'s Mem.”).)
A. Traffic Stop
Defendant argues that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. In response, the Government argues that the task officers' observations of a driver matching Defendant's description in a vehicle associated with Defendant provided reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant's vehicle.
When “police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion.'” United States v. Rush, 651 F.3d 871, 876 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985)); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25-31, (1968)). “A reasonable suspicion is a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person who is stopped.” United States v. Bustos-Torres, 396 F.3d 935, 942 (8th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). “In developing this suspicion, officers may rely on information provided by other officers as well as any information known to the team of officers conducting the investigation.” United States v. Johnson, 31 F.4th 618, 622 (8th Cir. 2022) (quotations omitted). The level of reasonable suspicion necessary to “justify a stop . . . need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 (2002). Moreover, “the government at a suppression hearing need only demonstrate that a reasonable suspicion existed by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Atlas, 94 F.3d 447, 451 (8th Cir. 1996). When deciding whether reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a Terry stop exists, the court looks at the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Gilliam, 520 F.3d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 2008).
As noted above, this Court heard testimony from Sergeant Jason Hughes at the July 21, 2022 suppression hearing regarding the January 8, 2020 traffic stop and arrest of Defendant. Other than Sergeant Hughes, no other members of the January 8, 2020 task force gave testimony regarding the traffic stop. Sergeant Hughes' testimony established the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial