United States v. Hill
| Citation | 575 F.Supp.3d 185 |
| Decision Date | 14 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Action No. 19-331 (RDM) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Jovan Andre HILL, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Christopher Berridge, Madhu Chugh, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ-USAO, Washington, DC, for United States of America.
Jose Alejandro German, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
On September 28, 2019, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at an apartment located at 3513 Ames Street, N.E., on suspicion that the apartment contained illegal narcotics and illegal firearms. Officers had obtained the warrant the day before, after attesting to a D.C. Superior Court judge that a reliable confidential informant had made a controlled buy of narcotics at the apartment within the past 72 hours. During their search, officers discovered a loaded and unregistered pistol in Defendant Jovan Andre Hill's vicinity and cocaine on his person. Hill was arrested at the scene and was later questioned by detectives at the police station, during which he made inculpatory statements. Shortly thereafter, a grand jury indicted Hill with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Dkt. 6.
This matter is before the Court on Hill's motion to suppress (1) the physical evidence officers uncovered during the search of the apartment and (2) the statements Hill made during his interrogation by police. Dkt. 34. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Hill's motion.
On September 27, 2019, officers from the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") applied for a warrant to search 3513 Ames Street, N.E., Apt. 102, Washington, D.C., for evidence of gun and drug offenses. See Dkt. 35-1 (Ex. A) (signed warrant and accompanying affidavit). The affidavit supporting the warrant attested that, as part of an operation to buy narcotics from "known drug trafficking locations," officers had used a reliable confidential informant to make a controlled buy at the apartment within the previous 72 hours. Dkt. 35-1 at 4–5 (Ex. A at 2–3). The affidavit explained that the confidential informant had "worked with the [MPD] for over ten years," had "participated in at least twenty-five controlled purchases of illegal controlled substance[s]," had "provided information to members of law enforcement that ... resulted in at least eleven search warrants being obtained," and had "never provided information to a member of Law Enforcement that ... was later determined to be unreliable." Id. at 4 (Ex. A at 2). It further explained that, before the controlled buy, an undercover officer Id. at 5 (Ex. A at 3). The confidential informant reported that, once inside, he or she Id. According to the affidavit, a field test of the powdery substance "yielded a positive color reaction presumptive for the presence of Opiates." Id. Based on this investigation, the affidavit averred that there was probable cause to search the apartment for illegal narcotics and "paraphernalia," id. , and that, because "persons who possess and traffic narcotics ... keep[,] possess, and own firearms for protection, and firearm components, accessories, [and] ammunition," id. at 4 (Ex. A at 2), there was also probable cause to search the apartment for those materials as well, id. at 5 (Ex. A at 3).
Relying on the affidavit, a D.C. Superior Court judge issued a warrant to search the apartment for "narcotics and narcotics related materials" as well as "firearms, firearms receipts, ammunition, holsters, firearms cleaning equipment, [and] magazines." Dkt. 35-1 at 2. Police executed the warrant the following morning, on September 28, 2019. Dkt. 35 at 2; Dkt. 35-2 at 2. When the officers entered, Hill was in the living room and another person was in the bedroom. Dkt. 35 at 2. According to the government, officers found a "loaded and unregistered pistol" in a "couch in the living room," which later testing revealed to contain Hill's DNA, and they also found a "white rock substance" in the bedroom that tested positive for cocaine. Id.
Hill was placed under arrest and taken back to the station. Dkt. 34 at 2. When officers searched him there, they found "three yellow zips of white rock ... in his shoe" which also "tested positive for cocaine." Dkt. 35 at 2. Two detectives sought to interview Hill at the station. Id. They advised him of his Miranda rights, id. at 2–3, and then asked Hill whether he "wish[ed] to answer any questions," to which Hill responded, "No, not really, no," id. at 3. The detectives followed up by asking, "Are you willing to answer any questions without an attorney present?" Hill replied: Id. Instead of stopping the interview at this point, the detectives continued to ask questions, and the following exchange ensued:
Dkt. 35 at 3–4. The detectives then reread Hill his Miranda rights, id. at 4, after which Hill signed a waiver-of-rights form, see Dkt. 35-4 (Ex. D). During the interview that followed, Hill admitted that the pistol officers had seized belonged to him. Id.
On October 1, 2019, a grand jury indicted Hill for unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of the crack cocaine in his shoe, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Dkt. 6. On April 19, 2020, Hill filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence found during the officers’ search and his statement to the detectives. Dkt. 34. The government filed its memorandum in opposition on April 28, 2020, Dkt. 35, and Hill filed his reply on May 20, 2020, Dkt. 37. On November 29, 2021, the Court held an evidentiary hearing, at which it heard testimony from one of the two detectives who questioned Hill and heard argument from counsel. See Min. Entry (Nov. 29, 2021). At the same hearing, the parties also proffered documentary evidence and a video recording of Hill's interrogation by police. See id.
Hill's motion to suppress raises two issues: first, that the search of his apartment, which turned up a loaded pistol and cocaine, violated Hill's rights under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause, and, second, that the detectives who questioned Hill did not honor his unambiguous request for counsel, thereby rendering his interview and confession unlawful. After considering the parties’ arguments as well as the record evidence, the Court concludes that the search of Hill's apartment was supported by probable cause and, in any event, that the officers had reasonably relied upon the search warrant issued by the D.C. Superior Court judge. Accordingly, the Court will deny Hill's motion with respect to the physical evidence uncovered during the search of his apartment. The Court is persuaded, however, that Hill unequivocally invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel and, thus, his subsequent interrogation occurred in violation of his Miranda rights. The Court will therefore grant Hill's motion with respect to his invocation of counsel and will suppress evidence of Hill's post-invocation statement to police.
The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and, to that end, provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place or places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."...
To continue reading
Request your trial