United States v. Howard
| Decision Date | 29 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 4:19-cr-00029 |
| Citation | 530 F.Supp.3d 611 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Maurice V. HOWARD and Devin Jamar Stockton, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Rachel Barish Swartz, US Attorney, United States Attorneys Office, Charlottesville, VA, Anthony Paul Giorno, US Attorney, Matthew M. Miller, US Attorney, United States Attorneys Office, Roanoke, VA, for United States of America.
Juval Orisha Scott, Public Defender, Monica Dumas Cliatt, Public Defender, Federal Public Defenders Office, Roanoke, VA, John Thomas Stanford, Public Defender, Federal Public Defenders Office, Abingdon, VA, for Defendant Maurice V. Howard.
Linda G. Willis, Linda G. Willis, Attorney at Law, Bedford, VA, Michael Patrick Regan, Law Offices of Michael P. Regan, P.C., Danville, VA, for Defendant Devin Jamar Stockton.
Michael F. Urbanski, Chief United States District Judge This matter is before the court on defendant Maurice V. Howard's amended motion to suppress physical and digital data from his cellular phone. Am. Mot. to Suppress, ECF No. 51. The government opposes the motion. Mem. in Opp., ECF No. 57. After a number of delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the court held an in-person suppression hearing on October 27, 2020. ECF No. 123. Howard, co-defendant Devin Jamar Stockton, and the government then submitted supplemental briefing to address the relevance of certain Supreme Court precedents to the motion to suppress. ECF Nos. 126, 131, 134. On December 7, 2020, the court took the motion to suppress under advisement because, though the court found that the warrantless search was unreasonable, it could not conclude that Howard had standing to suppress the evidence obtained by it because, contrary to prior briefing, evidence presented at the suppression hearing showed that Howard was not an overnight guest in Keona Morris's home the night prior to his arrest. ECF No. 143 at 6–10. The court directed the parties to submit additional briefing addressing whether Howard had a legitimate expectation of privacy in Morris's den at the time of his arrest. Id. at 11. For the reasons explained in the court's prior opinion and herein, the court will DENY Howard's motion to suppress.
On August 8, 2019, the government indicted Howard and co-defendant Devin Jamar Stockton for tampering with and conspiracy to tamper with consumer products in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1365. Indictment, ECF No. 3. The government also indicted Howard for threatening to injure the property and reputation of Monogram Snacks ("Monogram") and Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. ("PSSI") with the intent to extort money and other things of value in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875. Id.
At the time the alleged conduct took place, Howard and Stockton both worked for PSSI, which provided cleaning services to Monogram's manufacturing plant in Martinsville, Virginia. Monogram manufactures ready-to-eat meat snacks. Am. Mot. to Suppress, ECF No. 51, at 1. Around March 2019, PSSI and Monogram employees learned of a video showing an unknown male urinating on meat snacks in the Monogram plant and reported this to their superiors. Id. at 2. After some investigation, Howard and Stockton told their supervisors that they had a copy of the video. Id. Howard showed the video to one supervisor on his cellular phone. Id. PSSI then suspended Howard and Stockton with pay. Id.
Howard subsequently left the district to visit friends in Greenville, South Carolina, including Keona Morris and her guest, Lonnie Kilgore. Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 133, at 24, 64, 153. Kilgore is a friend of Howard's and the father of Morris's children. Id. at 52, 62. Two nights before his arrest, Howard spent the night in Morris's home. Id. at 52, 63. Morris testified that she had four bedrooms in her house, two upstairs and two downstairs with the den. Id. at 55. Nothing in the record suggests Howard was provided a key, given a particular room to sleep and store belongings, or had seen or stayed in the home prior to that weekend. The night before his arrest, Howard spent the night at Kilgore's mother's house. Id. at 52, 63. Howard came back the next day to socialize and share a meal with Morris and Kilgore, but he does not argue nor does he proffer any evidence that he brought clothes or an overnight bag into the home or intended to stay the night again. Nothing in the record suggests Morris excluded Howard from certain areas of the house, either as an overnight guest or as a returning social guest on the day of his arrest, though Kilgore testified that Howard had "no reason" to be downstairs at the time of the arrest. Id. at 81.
At the time of his trip, Howard was serving a term of supervised release in the Western District of Virginia. Howard's conditions of supervision dictate that he "shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer" and he "shall submit to warrantless search and seizure of person and property as directed by the probation officer, to determine whether the defendant is in possession of illegally controlled substances and/or firearms." J. at 3–4, United States v. Howard, No. 4:04-cr-70067-JLK-1 (W.D. Va. June 13, 2005), ECF No. 58. On March 14, 2019, the United States Probation Office ("USPO") for the Western District of Virginia applied for and received a warrant to arrest Howard for violating the terms of his supervised release by leaving the district. Arrest Warrant, Howard, No. 4:04-cr-70067-JLK-1 (W.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2019), ECF No. 86.
On March 25, 2019, Howard was arrested by the United States Marshals Service ("USMS") in the downstairs den of Morris's home. Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 133, at 81. At the time, the Marshals were aware that Howard's phone might contain incriminating evidence, but were unaware of the details of the investigation being conducted at that time by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). Id. at 8–10, 22–28, 96–98, 120. The Marshals seized Howard's phone, brought it with him to jail, and placed it in inmate property, which the defendant could access upon release and to which the defendant could also grant others access. Id. at 112–15. Later, the phone was moved from inmate property into a secure location for evidence pending the issuance of a search warrant. Id. at 39; FBI Report, ECF No. 57-3. On April 2, 2019, the FBI received a warrant to search the phone. Search and Seizure Warrant, ECF No. 57-2.
Howard and the government tell different tales about the discovery of Howard's phone during his arrest. At the suppression hearing, Howard alleged that his phone and wallet were seized from the den of Morris's home by forcing Kilgore—under threat that officers would "tear up" Morris's home—to pressure Howard into disclosing the phone's location and to retrieve the phone. Suppl. Mem., ECF No. 126, at 1. Shortly after the Marshals’ arrival, Kilgore and Howard were both escorted outside, and Kilgore testified that he heard the Marshals asking Howard about the location of his phone. Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 133, at 67–69. Kilgore says he heard Howard respond repeatedly that he didn't have a phone and didn't know anything about any phone. Id. at 69. Kilgore testified that he then heard the Marshals threatening to "tear up" Morris's home looking for Howard's phone, but Howard maintained that he did not have one. Id. at 69–70. Because Kilgore did not want the Marshals to harm Morris's home, he allegedly asked them if he could talk to Howard. Id. at 70. After receiving their permission, Kilgore says he walked over to Howard and pleaded with him to "[t]ell these people what they want" because Kilgore had been "nothing but good" to Howard and Howard shouldn't "let these people go up there and tear [Morris's] house up" if he knew where his phone was and could give the Deputy Marshals what they wanted. Id. at 70–71. Howard then disclosed the phone's location to Kilgore. Id. at 72. Kilgore then alleges he retrieved the phone from the den. Id.
The government argued Kilgore was not forced to do anything, that if Howard disclosed the location of the phone then he did so voluntarily, and that Agent Will Cook retrieved the phone from the area where Howard was arrested as part of a lawful protective sweep and without the aid of any disclosure by Howard. Second Mem. in Opp., ECF No. 134. Cook testified that he went back into the house after Howard was already handcuffed and out of the house and while the atmosphere was deescalated—so much so that he permitted Morris to resume cooking dinner. Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 133, at 102–04, 122–24. Unrelated to the process of arresting Howard, Cook said he conducted a search of the area where Howard had been arrested to ensure that no guns or drugs were left behind that could pose a danger later. Id. at 106–09, 122–24. Cook clearly and reliably explained where the phone was, how far apart it was from the wallet, what the couch looked like, and the circumstances under which he retrieved the phone. Id. at 105–09.
The court found in its prior opinion that any statements Howard may have made to Kilgore to locate the phone were voluntary and not the basis of any Fifth Amendment violation. Ultimately, the court credits Cook's testimony over Kilgore's and believes that it was Cook who retrieved the phone from Morris's den. But Cook exceeded the scope of the arrest warrant for Howard when he went back into the home to obtain the phone, allegedly as part of a protective sweep. Id. at 122–24. Cook's reasoning for searching the den has nothing to do with finding Howard or keeping himself or his fellow Marshals safe from Howard or from another hidden person's attack. Cook did not have a search warrant for Morris's home, nor did he have the consent of the homeowner to search for the phone. The government did not put on any evidence as to Morris's consent and nothing in the record reflects that she ever gave any indication of consent. As such, the court found...
To continue reading
Request your trial