United States v. Jones
| Decision Date | 29 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-20343,06-20343 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DEMOND KEVIN JONES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Before the Court is the August 26, 2011 Supplemental Motion to Suppress filed by Defendant Demond Kevin Jones ("Jones") (Supp. Mot. to Suppress Evidence, and Mot. for Return of Property Pursuant to Rule 41 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or in the Alternative Motion to Reconsider Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Denying Def.'s Mot. to Suppress, ECF No. 113 ("Supp. Mot. to Suppress").) The United States of America (the "Government") responded in opposition to Jones' Motion to Suppress on September 7, 2011. (Resp. of the United States to Def.'s Supp. Mot. to Suppress, ECF No. 116.) On September 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court deny Jones' Suppression Motion.(Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 122 ("Report") .) Jones objected on October 31, 2011. (Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendations Filed September 23, 2011, ECF No. 137 ("Objection") .) The Government responded on November 22, 2011. (Resp. of the United States to Def.'s Objections to Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 141.) For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and Jones' Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
On September 11, 2006, the grand jury returned an indictment charging Jones with one count of knowingly possessing more than fifteen unauthorized access devices with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) and (3), and one count of knowingly possessing with intent to use unlawfully five or more identification documents, authentication features, or false identification documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(2) and (3). (See Indictment 1-2, ECF No. 2.) Jones has moved to suppress evidence seized from the premises at 1961 Rembert Place, Memphis, Tennessee, where he was a tenant. (See Supp. Mot. to Suppress 1; Mem. of Law and Facts in Supp. of Mot. to Suppress 10-11, ECF No. 57.)
Jones first filed a Motion to Suppress on July 26, 2010. (Mot. to Suppress, ECF No. 56 ("Original Mot. to Supp.").) His Motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge on July 27, 2010(Order of Reference, ECF No. 58), and the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation on March 12, 2011. (Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 95 ("March 12 Report and Reccommendation").) On May 9, 2011, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Denying Def.'s Mot. to Suppress, ECF No. 103 ("Order") .) Jones filed this Supplemental Motion to Suppress on August 26, 2011. (Supp. Mot. to Suppress.)
In 2004, Larry Gordon ("Gordon") began renting a two-bedroom townhouse at 1961 Rembert Place in Memphis, Tennessee.1(Order 2.) William Thomas ("Thomas") managed the townhouse, which his parents owned. (Id.) Although only Gordon's name appeared on the lease, Jones resided at the townhouse and paid some of the rent. (Id.) Thomas was aware that Jones resided at the townhouse. (Id.) In 2005, Gordon and Jones stopped paying rent, and Thomas initiated eviction proceedings. (Id.) In May 2005, Thomas caused a detainer warrant to be issued by the Shelby County Court of General Sessions. (Id. 3) On September 14, 2005, a judgment and writ of possession were entered infavor of Thomas, authorizing him to evict Gordon and Jones and remove their property from the townhouse. (Id.)
On September 21, 2005, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Thomas, a Shelby County Sheriff's deputy, a locksmith, and two movers arrived at the townhouse to evict Gordon and Jones. (Id.) After the locksmith had opened the front door, the deputy confirmed that no one was inside and left the scene, and Thomas and the two movers began removing items from the premises and placing them on the curb. (Id.) Thomas eventually entered a bedroom and saw several credit cards, identification cards, and driver's licenses on the night stand and window ledge. (Id.) Thomas also saw credit cards, birth certificates, credit card applications, and passports in an open, clear plastic bin next to the bed, as well as a card laminating machine and another open box storing more identification cards and documents. (Id.) When Thomas inspected some of the cards, he noticed that one card contained Jones' personal identification information, but displayed a photograph of someone else Thomas knew. (Id.) Some cards displayed Jones' photograph but contained the personal identification information of other individuals. (Id. 3-4.) Other cards had photographs of different individuals but displayed the same name. (Id. 4.)
After seeing the cards and documents, Thomas called a nearby police station, reported what he had found, and was toldto bring the items to the station. (Id.) Thomas placed the cards and documents in a clear plastic container and a box that he had found in the room, put lids on the container and the box, and transported them to the station. (Id.) Once Thomas had arrived at the station, he gave the container and the box to Memphis Police Department Officer McQueen-Brown ("Officer McQueen-Brown"), described their contents, and stated his suspicion that the items were criminal in nature. (Id.) Officer McQueen-Brown looked through the clear plastic container and recognized several items as fraudulent identification documents. (Id.) The container and the box were taken to a room where she and other officers began inspecting the items more closely. (Id.)
Thomas and an officer returned to 1961 Rembert Place, where Thomas saw Gordon retrieving his property. (Id.) Thomas called officers at the station to inform them that Gordon was at the townhouse. (Id.) Officer McQueen-Brown and other officers traveled to the townhouse, asked Gordon for identification, discovered that he had an outstanding arrest warrant, and arrested him based on that warrant. (Id.)
Shortly thereafter, Jones arrived at the townhouse in his car and pulled into the driveway. (Id. 5) Thomas and Gordon identified Jones as the person who resided with Gordon and who was responsible for the identification documents. (Id.) Jonesattempted to back out of the driveway, but the officers stopped him. (Id.) Officer McQueen-Brown approached Jones' car and asked for identification. (Id.) Jones provided a driver's license displaying his photograph, but listing a different name. (Id.) Officer McQueen-Brown then looked into the car and saw on the passenger's side an open briefcase containing several identification documents and credit cards. (Id.) She also saw other identification documents in the driver's side door panel. (Id.) Jones was arrested because he possessed fraudulent identification documents and because he had outstanding arrest warrants. (Id.) His car was inventoried and towed to the city lot. (Id.)
The Court found the search of Jones' automobile, apartment, and containers permissible under the Fourth Amendment. (See Order.) The Court held that Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment because, once Thomas had obtained an eviction notice, Jones was a trespasser in the residence. (Id. 13.) The Court found that Jones "had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the items in the containers because they were in plain view inside the property at which he had no legal right to reside and were concealed only when Thomas collected them, put them in containers, and placed lids on the containers." (Id. 16.)
In his Supplemental Motion, Jones makes two arguments. He contends that, because Thomas called the police to report what he had found in the bedroom and the police told him to bring what he had found to the West Precinct station, Thomas "became an agent of the police." (Supp. Mot. 2.) Jones also contends that the Government is barred from introducing evidence found in the apartment under Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 211 (1960), because the police unlawfully obtained the evidence from his house. (Id. 3-4.)
The Magistrate Judge treated the Supplemental Motion as a Motion for Reconsideration, (Report 2), which should only be granted if necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. (Id. 4.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that no such error had occurred because Thomas was an independent agent who conducted his search as a private citizen and who called the police only after he had discovered the false documents. (Id. 9.) Because Thomas was a private citizen, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the evidence was not barred under Elkins. (Id. 10.) The Magistrate Judge also rejected Jones' contention that the search and seizure were unconstitutional because he provided "no specific basis for the Court to amend its May 9 Order." (Id.)
Jones objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. (Objection.) He contends that the Magistrate Judge applied theincorrect standard of review (Id. 2), made several erroneous factual and legal conclusions about Thomas' involvement in the police investigation (Id. 2-4), and misconstrued Jones' argument about the application of Elkins. (Id. 4-6.)
"It is well-settled that upon proper objection by a party, a district court must review de novo a magistrate judge's ruling on a motion to suppress." United States v. Quinney, 238 F. App'x 150, 152 (6th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). The district court need not review—under a de novo or any other standard—those aspects of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); United States v. Robinson, 352 F. App'x 27, 28-29 (6th Cir. 2009).
Jones has filed three objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report...
To continue reading
Request your trial