United States v. Gooch

• Decision Date: 28 December 2012
• Docket Number: Criminal No. 3:08–cr–07.
• Citation: 915 F.Supp.2d 690
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Charles J. GOOCH, Jr. and Sterling Yazmin Long–Payton, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

915 F.Supp.2d 690

UNITED STATES of America

v.Charles J. GOOCH, Jr. and Sterling Yazmin Long–Payton, Defendants.

Criminal No. 3:08–cr–07.

United States District Court,

W.D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 28, 2012.

Stephanie L. Haines, United States Attorney's Office, Johnstown, PA, for Plaintiff.

Christopher B. Brown, Federal Public Defender's Office, Pittsburgh, PA, Adam B. Cogan, Greensburg, PA, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.

I. SYNOPSIS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Sterling Yazmin Long–Payton's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of an Unlawful Search and Seizure with Accompanying Citation of Authority (hereinafter Defendant Payton's “Motion to Suppress”) (Doc. No. 28) and Defendant Charles J. Gooch, Jr.'s Motion to Suppress Evidence (hereinafter Defendant Gooch's “Motion to Suppress”) (Doc. No. 110), both of which the Government opposes. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Venue is proper pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18. For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendant Sterling Yazmin Long–Payton's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. 28) and will DENY Defendant Charles J. Gooch, Jr.'s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. 110).

II. BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2008, Defendants were indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute a quantity of 3, 4–methylenedioxyamphetamine, commonly known as ecstasy, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. (Doc. No. 1.) The Indictment charges that on or about May 25, 2007, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Defendants did knowingly, intentionally and unlawfully possess with intent to distribute a quantity of a Schedule I controlled substance commonly known as ecstasy. ( Id.) Defendants pleaded not guilty. ( See Doc. No. 16; Doc. No. 65.)

On July 7, 2009, Defendant Sterling Yazmin Long–Payton (hereinafter “Defendant Payton”) filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of an Unlawful Search and Seizure with Accompanying Citation of Authority. (Doc. No. 28.) The United States filed a response opposing this Motion on November 18, 2009. (Doc. No. 48.) On May 2, 2011, Defendant Charles J. Gooch, Jr. (hereinafter “Defendant Gooch”) filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. (Doc. No. 110.) The United States filed a response opposing this Motion on June 30, 2011. (Doc. No. 121). Defendant Payton twice moved to supplement her Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 111; Doc. No. 120), both of which motions were granted on May 3, 2011 and July 14, 2011, respectively ( see Doc. No. 112; Doc. No. 124). Defendant Gooch moved to supplement his Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 119), which Motion was also granted on July 13, 2011 (Doc. No. 123).

Through their Motions Defendants seek to suppress all evidence obtained by law enforcement officials as a result of an automobile stop by Corporal Robert F. Johnson ¹ of the Pennsylvania State Police on May 25, 2007. ( See Doc. No. 28 at 1; Doc. No. 110 at 1.) Defendant Payton also moves to suppress all statements attributed to Defendant Payton and taken by the Pennsylvania State Police on or about May 25, 2007 and any evidence derived therefrom. ( See Doc. No. 28 at 1.) A suppression hearing was held on July 19, 2011. ( See Doc. No. 126.) At this hearing, the Government introduced into evidence: (1) the testimony of Sergeant Robert F. Johnson, an officer employed by the Pennsylvania State Police ( see Doc. No. 133 at 3–183); (2) a video of the traffic stop and subsequent events that occurred on the Pennsylvania Turnpike on May 25, 2007 (Government Exhibit 1); and (3) the Pennsylvania State Police rights, warning and waiver form dated May 25, 2007 and executed by Defendant Payton (Government Exhibit 2). Defendants independently cross-examined Sergeant Johnson followed by a redirect-examination by the Government, a recross-examination by Defendant Gooch, and a redirect-examination by the Government. The Defendants introduced into evidence: (1) the testimony of Richard Villa, an investigator for the federal public defender ( see Doc. No. 133 at 120–23); (2) the testimony of David Michalak, an expert on window tint testing and inspection ( see id. at 123–74); (3) a photograph of the eastbound portal of the Allegheny Tunnel (Defendant's Exhibit A); (4) a photograph of the area outside the Allegheny Tunnel (Defendant's Exhibit B); (5) a copy of the written warning given to Defendant Payton by Corporal Johnson (Defendant's Exhibit C); (6) three pages of the report filled out by Corporal Johnson in connection with the instant investigation (Defendant's Exhibit D); (7) the criminal complaint sworn out by Corporal Johnson (Defendant's Exhibit E); (8) four photographs of the vehicle stopped in the instant case (Defendant's Exhibits F, G, H, and I); and (9) the certificate of salvage for the vehicle in the instant case (Defendant's Exhibit J). A transcription of the hearing (Doc. No. 132; Doc. No. 133) was produced. The parties subsequently filed their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as supplemented with permission of the Court.²( See Doc. No. 150; Doc. No. 161; Doc. No. 176; Doc. No. 187.) Following the submission of the Government's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, entitled “Post–Hearing Brief of the United States” (Doc. No. 187), the Defendants filed a Joint Reply to the Post–Hearing Brief of the United States (hereinafter Defendants' “Joint Reply”) (Doc. No. 191). The matter is now ripe for the Court's consideration.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Court makes the following findings of fact based on the evidence presented at the July 19, 2011 Suppression Hearing.

On May 25, 2007, Corporal Robert F. Johnson of the Pennsylvania State Police was working a midnight shift with Sergeant Anthony DeLuca and Corporal Vincent Mock along the Pennsylvania Turnpike near the eastern side of the Allegheny Tunnel. (Doc. No. 133 at 3, 5–6, 38–39). At the time of the event, Corporal Johnson was a fifteen year veteran of the Pennsylvania State Police with over ten years of experience in highway interdiction work as a trooper and was assigned to the Bureau of Emergency and Special Operations as a canine handler. ( Id. at 3–6.) As a canine handler, Corporal Johnson was responsible for assisting state, local, and federal agencies with drug investigations that required a narcotic detection canine. ( Id. at 28.) When Corporal Johnson did not have such an assignment, he engaged in routine traffic enforcement, including drug interdiction. ( Id. at 28–29, 74.)

During the course of this shift, Corporal Johnson parked his vehicle in the crossover area outside the eastbound side of the Allegheny Tunnel perpendicular to the two-lane westbound roadway, an estimated 15 to 20 feet from the edge of the westbound lane of traffic and an estimated 50 to 80 feet from the entrance of the tunnel. ( Id. at 5–6, 39, 42–43, 48.) Corporal Johnson was familiar with this stretch of highway, having spent a “vast majority” of his days in the area and having conducted several hundred vehicle stops around the area. ( Id. at 5.) The lighting at the time and place in question was dark, with some overhead lighting provided by tall street lamps that illuminated the tunnel but which was not very overwhelming or strong and lighting provided by the headlights of Corporal Johnson's patrol car. ( Id. at 6.)

From this location, at approximately 3:30 a.m., Corporal Johnson observed a dark-in-color sedan, which he later discovered was driven by Defendant Payton and occupied by Defendant Gooch, pass his location in the right-hand lane at approximately 50–60 miles per hour.³ ( Id. at 5–6, 8, 14–16, 75–76.) Corporal Johnson viewed the vehicle's side for approximately one to three seconds, during which time Corporal Johnson noticed that the vehicle's driver's side windows were tinted in a manner classified by Corporal Johnson as “limo tint” and “very dark” window tint. ( Id. at 8, 48–49, 76–77.) Following this observation, Corporal Johnson entered the left-hand lane of traffic and followed the vehicle through the Allegheny Tunnel with the intention of stopping the vehicle because Corporal Johnson believed the vehicle's windows were tinted in excess of the amount permitted by the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. ( Id. at 8–11, 49–50.) At some point between when Corporal Johnson moved his patrol car close to the vehicle Defendants were occupying and when Corporal Johnson stopped his patrol car, Corporal Johnson observed the rear deck brake light was only half operable. ( Id. at 11, 13–14, 57–58.)

Upon exiting the tunnel, Corporal Johnson pulled behind the dark sedan driven by Defendant Payton, at which point Corporal Johnson observed that the vehicle displayed Indiana registration plates. ( Id. at 9, 10, 52–53.) Corporal Johnson activated his emergency lights and Defendant Payton quickly pulled over to the side of the highway in compliance with Corporal Johnson's signal to stop. ( Id. at 52–53; see Government Exhibit 1.) Defendant Payton parked her vehicle ⁴ in close proximity to—approximately one foot from—the white fog line and approximately two to three vehicle lengths from a wide parking area on the highway's shoulder where several tractor trailer trucks were parked with their lights activated. (Doc. No. 133 at 17, 52–55, 79–81; Government Exhibit 1.) Although rarely experienced during his years conducting traffic stops, Corporal Johnson learned from his training in criminal and drug interdiction that drug traffickers sometimes park their vehicles very close to the white fog line to prevent the officer effecting the traffic stop from approaching the driver's side of the vehicle as a tactic to disorient an officer effecting a traffic stop. (Doc. No. 133 at 17–18, 54.) Corporal Johnson approached the passenger side of the vehicle, in response to which the occupants...