United States v. Henry

• Decision Date: 23 January 2018
• Docket Number: Criminal Action No. 2016-0026
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALVIN HENRY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALVIN HENRY, et al., Defendants.

Criminal Action No. 2016-0026

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

January 23, 2018

Attorneys:

Rhonda Williams-Henry, Esq.,

Daniel H. Huston, Esq.,

St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

For the United States

Omodare B. Jupiter, Esq.,

St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

Kia D. Sears, Esq.,

St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.

For Defendant Alvin Henry

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lewis, Chief Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Alvin Henry's ("Defendant") "Motion to Suppress," filed on May 1, 2017, and the Government's "Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress," filed on May 12, 2017. (Dkt. No. 63; Dkt. No. 66). An evidentiary hearing was held in this matter on December 14, 2017. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

On November 30, 2016, the Government filed an Information against Defendant and his Co-Defendant Lamech Mathew ("Matthew") charging them each with two counts. (Dkt. No. 20).² Count 1 is conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(B)(iii)-(C), and 846. Count 2 is possession of cocaine powder with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

At the suppression hearing held on December 14, 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") Officer Richard Anderson, CBP Officer Renael Steele, and Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI") Special Agent Nathaniel Copping testified for the Government. Defendant did not call any witnesses. The following facts emerged from the record established at the hearing.

At approximately 3 p.m. on November 2, 2016, Officer Anderson was performing Customs enforcement duties with Officer Steele and additional CBP officers in the boarding area of the Henry E. Rohlsen Airport on St. Croix.³ Among the additional CBP officers present was K-9 Officer Patrick King, who was leading his K-9—which Officer Anderson testified is trained to detect narcotics and hidden human beings—through the boarding area. Officer Anderson's dutiesincluded observing the reactions of passengers in the boarding area to Officer King and his K-9 for signs of nervousness, suggesting their possible possession of contraband.

Officer Anderson testified that as Officer King and his K-9 approached Defendant, who was seated in the boarding area, Defendant stood up and pulled his bags off of the floor and towards his chest.⁴ Officer Anderson found this suspicious, as it appeared to him that Defendant wanted to hide something in his bags from the K-9. Officer King then told Defendant to put his bags back down on the ground, and Defendant complied. The K-9 sniffed Defendant's bags, but did not alert.

Officers Anderson and Steele decided to search Defendant's bags. Officer Steele testified that he walked up to Defendant, who was talking on a cellphone, and asked Defendant if he could check his bags. According to Officer Steele, Defendant looked directly at him and replied: "Yes."⁵ Officer Steele opened the first of Defendant's two bags and observed a brick-shaped package wrapped in duct tape. He then opened Defendant's second bag and observed more brick-shaped packages wrapped in tape. Officer Steele did not remove the packages from Defendant's bags at that point. Officer Anderson could not see inside Defendant's bags, but Officer Steele informed him that there were "bricks" in the luggage. Officer Anderson noted that among CBP officers, "bricks" means packages containing narcotics. Officer Anderson testified that he did not ask Defendant any questions about the bags while in the boarding area, but assumed that the bags wereDefendant's because they were in his possession. Officer Anderson placed Defendant in handcuffs, and Officers Anderson and Steele escorted Defendant, along with his bags, to the secondary inspection area in the airport.⁶

Upon arriving in the secondary inspection area, Officers Anderson and Steele were joined by CBP Officer Gisselle Lopez. Officer Lopez asked Defendant three questions: "Is this your bag? Did you pack the bag yourself? Are you aware of everything that is in the bag?" Defendant was not advised of his Miranda rights before Officer Lopez questioned him. Defendant responded that the bags were his, but that he did not know if anyone else had placed anything in the bags.⁷ CBP officers then searched Defendant's bags and removed brick-shaped objects wrapped in duct tape from both bags. CBP officers performed a field test on the contents of the duct-taped packages. The contents of the packages tested positive for cocaine. Officer Steele testified that there was no further dialogue between the CBP officers and Defendant following the questioning by Officer Lopez.

After the contents of the packages field-tested positive for cocaine, CBP officers alerted Special Agent Copping and other HSI agents that Defendant was in their custody in the secondary inspection area.⁸ Special Agent Copping responded to the secondary inspection area, where Defendant was seated in a chair against the wall with his hands cuffed behind his back. The bags and duct-taped packages were on the table. Special Agent Copping spoke with CBP officers aboutwhy and how Defendant was detained. Other than asking Defendant whether he needed to go to the bathroom or wanted water, Special Agent Copping did not question Defendant while in the secondary inspection area, nor did he hear any other HSI agent or CBP officer question Defendant. Different CBP officers and HSI agents entered the secondary inspection area while Special Agent Copping was there. He estimated that, at any given time, between two and four law enforcement personnel were in the secondary inspection area.

After speaking with the CBP officers, Special Agent Copping, along with HSI Special Agent James Brian O'Quinn, escorted Defendant to the HSI sub-office within the airport. The sub-office is a small room, large enough for two desks and chairs. Upon arriving in the sub-office, the HSI agents seated Defendant in a chair. The HSI agents also sat down in chairs approximately four feet away from Defendant on either side. Defendant remained in handcuffs, but the HSI agents transferred the handcuffs from behind Defendant's back to in front of his body. Because the HSI agents intended to interview Defendant but did not have a video camera to record the interview, the HSI agents did not begin their questioning right away.⁹ After a few minutes, while still waiting for the camera to arrive, the HSI agents decided to advise Defendant of his Miranda rights.¹⁰ The HSI agents read Defendant his Miranda rights, asked Defendant if he wished to speak with them, and provided Defendant with a Miranda waiver form, which they told him to read and sign if he wished to speak with them. Defendant told the HSI agents that he wished to speak with them and signed the Miranda waiver form. The Government introduced the Miranda waiver form—bearingthe signatures of Defendant, Special Agent Copping, and Special Agent O'Quinn—into evidence at the suppression hearing.

The HSI agents did not begin questioning Defendant after he signed the Miranda form because the camera had not arrived. A few minutes later, there was a power outage at the airport and an alarm went off. The HSI agents decided to evacuate the building with Defendant. The HSI agents escorted Defendant outside the airport where they stood for a short period of time before deciding to relocate to the HSI main office at the Sunny Isle shopping center to interview Defendant.¹¹ Special Agent Copping testified that, to the best of his recollection, Special Agent O'Quinn transported Defendant to the HSI main office in an HSI vehicle. Special Agent Copping traveled to the HSI main office in a separate vehicle. The HSI agents travelled in different vehicles because they had arrived at the airport that morning separately for a training session. There was no testimony about what conversation, if any, occurred between Special Agent O'Quinn and Defendant as they traveled to the HSI main office. Special Agents O'Quinn and Copping arrived at the HSI main office simultaneously.

Upon arriving at the HSI main office, Defendant was placed in a holding cell as the HSI agents prepared the lunch room in the main office for an interview with Defendant. The lunch room is a small room containing one table with seating space for four people. The HSI agents set up a hand-held video camera to record the interview. Two subsequent interviews of Defendant conducted by the HSI agents were recorded in their entireties.¹²

The HSI agents began their first interview of Defendant at the HSI main office approximately one hour after Defendant signed the Miranda waiver at the HSI airport sub-office. Before questioning Defendant at the HSI main office, the HSI agents again asked Defendant whether he understood his Miranda rights and whether he wanted to speak with them. Special Agent Copping testified that Defendant stated clearly that he wished to speak with the HSI agents. The HSI agents then proceeded to interview Defendant.

Following the initial interview with Defendant, HSI agents also interviewed Co-Defendant Matthew. In light of the information provided by Matthew, Special Agents Copping and O'Quinn decided to interview Defendant again approximately two or three hours after the initial interview. The HSI agents did not re-Mirandize Defendant before the second interview. During the interviews, Defendant admitted to the HSI agents that he was aware that cocaine had been placed in his luggage and stated that he had planned to board the airplane with the cocaine. (Dkt. No. 16 at 2).¹³ Following the interviews, the HSI agents requested to search Defendant's two cellphones. Defendant consented to the cellphone searches and signed consent-to-search forms for both phones.¹⁴

II. DISCUSSION

A. Search of Defendant's Luggage

Defendant asserts that...