United States v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 30 June 2022
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL 3:21cr29
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JERMAINE DARNELL JOHNSON and RUDOLPH MIFFIN, JR., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JERMAINE DARNELL JOHNSON and RUDOLPH MIFFIN, JR., Defendants.

CRIMINAL No. 3:21cr29

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

June 30, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

M. HANNAH LAUCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on four motions:

(1) Defendant Rudolph Miffin, Jr.'s Motion to Suppress Evidence Found in 'Violation of the Fourth Amendment (“Miffin's Motion to Suppress I”), (ECFNo 17)

(2) Miffin's Motion to Suppress Custodial Statements (“Miffin's Motion to SuppressII”), (ECFNo 18)

(3) Defendant Jermaine Darnell Johnson's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (“Johnson's Motion to Suppress”), (ECF No. 31); and,

(4) Miffin's Motion to Adopt Defendant Johnson's Motion to Suppress Evidence (“Miffin's Motion to Adopt”), (ECF No. 32).

The United States responded, (ECF No. 34), and Defendants replied, (ECF Nos. 36, 37). The Court held two evidentiary hearings and ordered supplemental briefing on two occasions. (ECF No. 45, at 1.) The parties submitted their supplemental briefs. (ECF Nos. 48-1,49, 50, 51-1.) The Court held a hearing to discuss relevant matters. Based on issues raised during that hearing, the Court ordered additional briefing for a second time. Each Defendant submitted a second supplemental brief, (ECF Nos. 54, 55), but the United States did not, and the time to do so has

1

expired. Thus, this matter is ripe for disposition. For the reasons articulated below, the Court will grant the Motion to Adopt, deny Miffin's Motion to Suppress II as moot, and grant in part and deny in part Mifflin's Motion to Suppress I and Johnson's Motion to Suppress.

I. Procedural History and Findings of Fact

A. Procedural History

A grand jury indicted Johnson and Miffin, charging: Johnson with Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (“Count One”); Miffin with the same offense (“Count Two”); and both Johnson and Miffin with Possession with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (“Count Three”). (ECF No. 4, at 1-3.) Defendants appeared before this Court for Johnson's arraignment and a status conference. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.) During the status conference, the Court issued a scheduling order for motions and a date for a hearing. '

Miffin timely filed his Motions to Suppress. (ECF Nos. 17 and 18.) Johnson also filed his Motion to Suppress. (ECF No. 31.) Miffin then filed his Motion to Adopt. (ECF No. 32.) The United States responded, (ECF No. 34), and Defendants replied, (ECF Nos. 36, 37). All papers were timely filed.

The Court held an evidentiary hearing. (See generally ECF No. 47.) At the hearing, the Court heard testimony from two of the police officers who conducted the traffic stop giving rise to the present Motions to Suppress, as well as a witness for Defendants. The Court also admitted into evidence twenty-one exhibits, including footage from the officers' body-worn cameras (“BWC”).^[1]

2

The next day, the Court ordered supplemental briefing. (ECF No. 45, at 1.) Pursuant to this Order, the United States filed its supplemental brief in response to the pending Motions to Suppress, (ECF No. 48-1), and Defendants filed their supplemental briefs in support, (ECF Nos. 49, 50). The United States replied. (ECF No. 51-1.)

The Court heard oral argument on the suppression motions a second time. The Court questioned the parties on several cases pertinent to the instant motions. The Court allowed the parties to file additional supplemental briefing to address the cases discussed during the hearing. Each Defendant filed a second supplemental brief. (ECF Nos. 54, 55.) The United States did not, however, and the time to file a second a supplemental brief has expired.

B. Findings of Fact

1. September 1,2020 Traffic Stop Involving Johnson and Miffin

Early in the morning of September 1, 2020, around 1:00 a.m., Henrico Police Officer Orride Thomas Broaddus, Jr. was on patrol in the “65 service area” of Henrico County, which encompasses three apartment buildings: Fox Rest Apartments, Place One Apartments, and Abbington West Apartments. (See ECF No. 47, at 8:17-22, 51:2.) At that time, Officer Broaddus was a nine-year veteran of the police force, starting with the Virginia Commonwealth University Police Department in 2012. (ECF No. 47, at 7:20-25.) He had served in the Henrico County Police Department since 2017. (ECF No. 47, at 7:20-25.) As of September 2020, Officer Broaddus had patrolled the 65 service area for at least a year and a half. (ECF No. 47, at 9:6-8.) On the morning in question, Officer Broaddus focused his patrol on vandalization and burglaries in response to “reports of juveniles in that area, specifically from Place One Apartment and Abbington West Apartments, that were frequenting that area, going to clubhouses, going to vehicles, larcenies from autos, [etc.], [and] potential burglaries and

3

activities associated with vandalism.” (ECF No. 47, at 9:21-10:2; see also Gov't Ex. 2 “September 1, 2020 E-Brief” 1.)

a. Officer Broaddus Encounters Defendants During His Patrol

During his patrol early that morning, Officer Broaddus “came across a vehicle that was parked [in a dark area] in the Place One Apartment community that had [its] lights on.” (ECF No. 47, at 13:19-21,16:19-20.) Because the car having its lights on in a dark area “stuck out to” him, Officer Broaddus stopped and conducted a records check of the vehicle's license plate. (ECF No. 47, at 16:21-17:1.) Although the records check produced information associating the license plates with a different color car, no warrants were on file, and Officer Broaddus did not receive “any[ information] of concern” about the vehicle. (ECF No. 47, at 17:25-18:2.) Nonetheless, Officer Broaddus left his police cruiser and approached the parked car on foot. (ECFNo. 47, at 18:11-14.) •

Arriving at the car, Officer Broadus encountered a person later identified as Miffin sitting alone in the passenger seat with the door open. (ECF No. 47, at 19:4-9.) The two men spoke briefly about criminal activity in area. (ECF No. 47, at 19:12-20.) During their conversation, Defendant Johnson walked up to the car and asked “about what was going on.” (ECF No. 47, at 19:25-20:5.) As he did with Miffin, Officer Broaddus engaged Johnson in a conversation about criminal activity in the area. (ECF No. 47, at 20:10-11.) Both men struck Officer Broaddus as “cooperative and cordial” during this initial encounter. (ECF No. 47, at 19:21-23, 20:14-16.) After the conversation ended, Officer Broaddus left, drove out of the Place One Apartment community, and traveled to the Fox Rest Apartment complex to continue his patrol. (ECF No. 47, at 21:17-20.)

4

b. Officer Broaddus Stops Defendants for a Defective Light

Later that morning, around 1:25 a.m., still during his patrol, Officer Broaddus saw a car pass him with an unlit light above its rear license plate. (ECF No. 47, at 29:1-3,14-21, 38:3-4; see also Gov't Ex. 5 “Image of Defective License Plate Light” 1.) Because the unlit light constituted an equipment violation, Officer Broaddus decided it was a better use of police resources to follow that car than to continue his patrol of the 65 service area. (ECF No. 47, at 29:14, 25-30:2.) Officer Broaddus followed the car out of his service area onto Staples Mill Road. (ECF No. 47, at 29:22-34:10; see also Gov't Ex. 3 “Overhead Map of Place One Apartments to Staples Mill Road” 1.)

Once on Staples Mill Road in Henrico County, Officer Broaddus caught up to the vehicle and turned on his emergency blue lights near the intersection with Janway Road. (ECF No. 47, at 34:13-18,36:8-12; Gov't Ex. 4 “Overhead Map of Traffic Stop Location” 1.) The car travelled about one block, stopping near an access road adjacent to the major intersection . between Staples Mill Road and Parham Road. (ECF No. 47, at 36:25-37:9; Overhead Map of Traffic Stop Location 1.) This section of Staples Mill Road is a business area, located about a mile and a half from the Henrico Police Department and Henrico Courthouse. (ECF No. 47, at 37:16-17,121:2-14.) It had just rained, so the road was wet. (ECF No. 47, at 37:13-14.) In addition, given the time of day, cars passed only intermittently, and the area was dark. (ECF No. 47, at 37:18-38:2.)

Proceeding alone, Officer Broaddus approached the driver's side window of the stopped car, which had two occupants. (ECF No. 47, at 41:14-21.) Once he had walked up to the driver's side window, Officer Broaddus realized that this was the same car he had approached during his patrol of the Place One Apartment complex. (ECF No. 47, at 41:17-42:3.) After

5

acknowledging the initial encounter, Officer Broaddus informed Johnson, the driver, that his car had an unlit tag light. (ECF No. 47, at 42:2-10; Gov't Ex. 16 “Broaddus BWC” 0:25-0:50.) Johnson noted his awareness of the defective light and then expressed concern to Officer Broaddus about the stop, informing Officer Broaddus that he (Johnson) was “on federal papers,” a euphemism for federal supervision. (ECF No. 47, at 42:11-17; Broaddus BWC 0:45-1:15.) Officer Broaddus explained to Johnson that a defective tag light was beyond anyone's control, and that “he should[ not] have much to be concerned about.” (ECF No. 47, at 42:23-43:17; accord Broaddus BWC at 1:10-1:20.)

Officer Broaddus then asked Johnson and Miffin, who occupied the front passenger seat, for their identification, advising, “When I stop a car, I need to identify both occupants.” (ECF No. 47, at 43:3-6,18-24; Broaddus BWC 1:20-1:25.) Johnson and Miffin then handed over their papers. (Broaddus BWC 1:45-1:50.) When Officer Broaddus asked for the vehicle's registration, Johnson informed Officer Broaddus that he could not find the registration because the car belonged to someone else. (ECF No. 47, at 43:8-13; Broaddus BWC 2:10-2:20.) Johnson...