United States v. Hobbs
| Decision Date | 27 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:12CR0014AGF |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Clifford Keith Hobbs, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on the pretrial motions of Defendant Clifford Keith Hobbs. Defendant is charged in an indictment with one count of using a facility of interstate commerce to entice a minor to engage in illicit sexual activity.1 The case is set for trial on September 10, 2012, the trial date having been continued on Defendant's motion. All pretrial motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Ann L. Medler under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). While represented by counsel, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Statements and Evidence (Doc. No. 39), and the United States filed a Motion for Determination of Admissibility Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (Doc. No. 25). An evidentiary hearing was held on Defendant's motion to suppress on April 5, 2012.
Defendant thereafter filed a pro se Notice of Dismissal of Counsel, which Judge Medler properly treated as a motion. (Doc. No. 45) Following a hearing on April 23, 2012, at which Judge Medler conducted an extensive colloquy, Defendant was permitted to proceed pro se, and Assistant Federal Public Defender Sean Vicente was appointed as stand-by counsel. In his Notice of Dismissal of Counsel, Defendant also raised other issues, including arguments related to discovery and challenges to the Court's jurisdiction, and the United States responded to these additional issues. The day after the hearing, Defendant filed a pro se document entitled "Take Judicial Notice and Administrative Notice; in the Nature of a Writ of Error, Coram Nobis, and a Demand for Dismissal for Failure to State the Proper Jurisdiction and Venue." (Doc. No. 48.) The United States responded to this filing, as well. (Doc. No. 55.)
On May 15, 2012, Judge Medler issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. No. 57) addressing all of the issues raised by Defendant. Judge Medler recommended that Defendant's motion to suppress be denied. She also recommended denial of Defendant's claim that his arrest was unconstitutional, his assertion that the case is barred by double jeopardy, and Defendant's other contentions that the Court lacks jurisdiction. Judge Medler also ordered that Defendant's request for discovery be denied, and that Defendant's request for grand jury materials be granted in part and denied in part. In a Supplemental Report and Recommendation ("Supplemental R&R") (Doc. No. 59), filed on May 22, 2012, Judge Medler recommended that the United States' motion to determine admissibility of Defendant's statements be granted and that Defendant'sstatement be found to be voluntary. In both the R&R and the Supplemental R&R, Defendant was advised that he had fourteen days to file written objections to each report and recommendation.
Defendant did not file any objections or other documents within fourteen days of the initial R&R. On May 31, 2012, Defendant filed, by hand-delivery, a document entitled, "Take Judicial Notice and Administrative Notice; In the Nature of a Writ of Error, Coram Nobis, of Fraud Upon the Court, Improper Jurisdiction & Venue, and Perjured Oath & Conflict of Interest" (Doc. No. 61). Although the United States challenges the timeliness of this filing, the Court, to the extent pertinent, shall treat this as an objection to the R&R, and also deems the filing to be timely as it was filed within fourteen days of the Supplemental R&R. On June 13, 2012, Defendant filed another document, entitled "Challenge of Jurisdiction" (Doc. No. 64), to which the United States has responded. In these two filings, Defendant does not challenge the findings of fact or legal conclusions related to Defendant's motion to suppress. Rather, Defendant seeks dismissal of the indictment, asserting various challenges to the Court's jurisdiction and the authority of the Court and prosecutors, some of which were addressed in the R&R.
When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation concerning a dispositive matter, the Court is required to "'make a de novo review determination of those portions of the record or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.'" United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When a party objects to orders on nondispositive matters, "[t]hedistrict judge must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is contrary to law or clearly erroneous." Rule 59(a), F. R. Cr. P.
As stated above, Defendant has not challenged the findings of fact or legal conclusions in the R&R with respect to Defendant's motion to suppress. Nonetheless, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court conducted a de novo review of the motion to suppress evidence and statements, including a full review of the testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearings on April 5 and April 23, 2012. Based on that review, the undersigned concludes that the Magistrate Judge made proper factual findings and correctly analyzed the issues.
For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court finds that the officers, based on their investigation, including the messages sent by Defendant and their observation of Defendant's actions consistent with his messages, had probable cause to believe Defendant was committing a felony at the time he was stopped and arrested. The Court also agrees with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge that the search of Defendant's vehicle at the time of his arrest, and the seizure of items from Defendant's vehicle, including his cell phone,2 the condoms, and the receipt for the condoms, was lawful, and not subject to suppression. Several different grounds authorize the search of the vehicle, including that it was reasonable for the officers to believe that the vehiclecontained "evidence of the offense of arrest," within the meaning of Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 346 (2009). Further, the officers were authorized to conduct and did conduct an inventory search of the vehicle, and the items seized would inevitably have been discovered during such a search. Because the officers had probable cause to stop and arrest Defendant, his arguments that the evidence is subject to suppression as the fruit of the unlawful detention also fail.
For the reasons stated in the R&R and Supplemental R&R, the Court also agrees that any statements by Defendants were voluntary, and should not be suppressed. The only statement challenged by Defendant was the statement he made at the scene, following his arrest, in which he stated: This statement was made after Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights. And though Defendant promptly invoked his right to counsel, the statement was made spontaneously, and was not in response to any questioning by Detective Bosley or any other officer. Nor is the statement subject to suppression as the fruit of an unlawful arrest, as the officers had probable cause to stop Defendant and to arrest him.
Although Defendant nowhere specifically challenges the voluntariness of his statement at the scene, the record reflects that the statement was voluntary. Prior to making the statement, Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights. At the time, Defendant, who was then approximately 46 years old, did not appear to be under theinfluence of drugs or alcohol, was not subject to any threats or force, appeared to understand what was transpiring, and understood his Miranda rights well enough to invoke his right to counsel. As such, Defendant's statement should not be suppressed
Defendant did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order denying his request for discovery,3 including a list of witnesses, or to the Order granting Defendant's request for grand jury testimony transcripts to the extent of the prosecutor's offer to produce, and denying the request in all other respects. Even if Defendant had properly preserved his objections to these orders, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's rulings are neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous, and indeed, properly reflect the applicable law under Rules 16 and 6, respectively, of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Court will not overrule the Magistrate Judge's Orders on these issues.
Prior to the issuance of the R&R, Defendant asserted various arguments for dismissal and challenges to jurisdiction, which the undersigned has also reviewed de novo. Based on that review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly analyzed the issues, and the Court therefore adopts Judge Medler's well-reasonedrecommendations and will overrule Defendant's requests for dismissal and challenges to jurisdiction, which are summarized below:
a. The Court rejects Defendant's contention that the officers lacked authority to arrest Defendant on this indictment. The indictment was properly returned and the warrant was properly issued and returned. The law does not require the officers to present a defendant with a copy of the warrant unless the defendant requests same, and there is no evidence in this record of any such request by Defendant Hobbs.
b. The charge in the indictment is not barred by double jeopardy because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a federal prosecution of a defendant prosecuted for the same acts in state court. Further, jeopardy had not attached on the state charges, and Defendant was not charged with the "same offense," within the meaning of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S 299, 304 (1932), in state and federal court.
c. Defendant's assertion that the Court lacks jurisdiction because he was not in the military, was not a federal employee, and the crime was not committed...
To continue reading
Request your trial