United States v. Jones
| Decision Date | 12 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cr-89-BJB |
| Parties | United States of America v. Salvador Abdul Jones |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
Salvador Abdul Jones is charged with committing five bank robberies in the Louisville area. He has moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of three sets of warrants: (1) the pen-register, trap-and-trace, and phone warrants because they misidentified the crime as “heroin trafficking,” (2) the search warrant for his residence because it was dated for the day after the search, and (3) the warrants for the phones because they lacked probable cause, particularity, and were based on false statements and misleading omissions that justify a Franks hearing. He also moved to exclude (4) evidence derived from the marital communications Jones's wife, Nikira Gibbs, provided officers. Magistrate Judge Edwards recommended denying all of the motions. Jones timely objected to the Report and Recommendation, but did so without specifying the legal authorities that in his view required suppression. After being ordered to refile, Jones focused his objections on the reference to heroin trafficking and Gibbs's marital communications. After conducting a de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Edwards overrules Jones's objections, and denies all of his motions.
i Background
As the Magistrate Judge explained without objection, the facts underlying this motion are drawn largely from the affidavits filed to support the warrants in question. Report and Recommendation (DN 42) 1-3; DN 43 at 1 (). Over the course of about a month, six bank robberies occurred in Louisville and Southern Indiana. After the first robbery on April 2, 2021, officers collected security footage showing a suspect getting in a black SUV near the Brown Hotel. Search Warrant Affidavit (DN 35-1) at 4. After the second and third robberies, officers concluded that the same suspect was involved based on victim descriptions and videos showing the suspect wearing “some of the same clothing.” Id. After the fourth robbery, the police found a black SUV, a 2009-2015 Toyota Venza, with the same description as the vehicle from the first robbery. Id. at 5. A robbery the next day followed the same description. Id. But the suspect remained at large.
On May 5, yet another similar robbery was reported. Id. at 5. The officers put out a notice to look for a black Toyota Venza. Id. Some officers in the neighborhood spotted a vehicle matching the description, reported the license plate number, and began tailing the vehicle. Id. A search of the license plate revealed the vehicle belonged to Nikira Gibbs. Id. The officers tailing the vehicle lost it, so the other officers used their newly obtained information to visit Gibbs's residence. Id. Once they arrived, the officers saw Gibbs pacing in front of her residence. Id. She informed them that she was trying to report her vehicle as stolen. Id. Officers asked her to come with them for an interview because her vehicle was just used in a crime. Id. During the interview, she told officers that she had married Salvador Abdul Jones the day before, May 4. Id. Officers began looking into Jones and found that his characteristics matched the descriptions from the six robberies. Id. Gibbs told officers she would often drop Jones off at different locations around the city and later pick him up, including the Brown Hotel about a month prior. Id. Gibbs also said that earlier that day Jones called her and said he was being chased by the police and totaled the car and asked her to call and report it stolen. Id. Officers showed her photographs from several of the robberies with the suspect and Gibbs identified the suspect as Jones. Id. Gibbs then provided two numbers for Jones, *3671 and *6250. Id. The 3671 number was registered to Jones with Verizon. Id.
Based on this information, LMPD Detective Benjamin Dean sought penregister, trap-and-trace, and search warrants for “subscriber records, transactional records, and related content.” DN 35-1; DN 35-2. Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge McKay Chauvin signed the warrants on May 5. Id. Judge Chauvin also signed a search warrant for Jones's residence; although he dated the house warrant as May 6, it was actually executed the same day, May 5. DN 35-5.
On the 6th, officers learned the 3671 number was switched to T-Mobile/Metro PCS. So Detective Dean requested and received another pen register. DN 35-3. These warrants stated the investigation was for heroin trafficking, though the accompanying affidavits described the robberies. Around the same time, the officers received pings from the 6250 Sprint number around Nashville. Nashville police obtained their own warrant for the Sprint number's location, and then found and arrested Jones. Detective Dean traveled to Nashville and interviewed Jones, who confessed to four of the robberies. DN 35-6 at 4. Afterwards, Detective Dean also applied for a search warrant for the electronic data on two phones collected from Jones. Id.
Based on the gathered evidence, a federal grand jury indicted Jones on five counts of bank robbery for the robberies occurring in the Western District of Kentucky. DN 1; 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Jones filed four motions to suppress, targeting evidence obtained from: (1) the pen-register and trap-and-trace device warrants because they misidentified the crime as “heroin trafficking,” Motion to Suppress Pen Registers (DN 37) at 3; (2) the search warrant for his residence because it was dated for the day after the search, Motion to Suppress Residence Evidence (DN 38); (3) the warrants for the phones because they lacked probable cause, particularity, and were based on false statements and misleading omissions that justify a Franks hearing, Motion for Franks Hearing and to Suppress Phones (DN 39) at 1; and, (4) any evidence derived from the marital communications Gibbs provided officers, Motion to Suppress Marital Communications (DN 40) at 1.
This Court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Edwards under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to conduct any hearings and prepare a report and recommendation. DN 41. Magistrate Judge Edwards recommended denying all of the motions. R&R at 1. She recommended denying the motion to suppress the warrant for Jones's residence because the signature date was a technical error that made no difference. Id. at 4. As to the marital communications, she explained that the privilege only applies to in-court testimony, not statements made to aid an investigation. Id. at 6. For the pen registers and phone searches, Magistrate Judge Edwards found that misidentifying the crime was a mere mistake and there was sufficient evidence for probable cause. Id. at 7-12. She also noted that the good-faith exception would apply in any event. Id. at 16-17. And a Franks hearing was unwarranted because Jones didn't prove any of the statements were deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, much less that any omissions were made with deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth. Id. at 12-16.
Jones initially filed objections broadly incorporating all of his previous motions and challenging each finding with minimal legal citations. 1st Objections (DN 43). The Court ordered Jones to refile his objections with references to law and ordered the Government to respond. DN 45. Jones narrowed his objections, arguing that the reference to heroin trafficking in the warrants had a significant impact on the probable-cause analysis and that any evidence derived from Gibbs's disclosure of marital communications should be suppressed. 2nd Objections (DN 46).
II. Analysis
A district court may refer a motion to suppress to a magistrate judge to conduct a hearing and submit a report and recommendation suggesting potential resolutions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(1). If a party objects to any of the magistrate judge's rulings, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3). But the court needn't address issues not specifically objected to by either party and may simply adopt the magistrate judge's recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 15053 (1985). If no party objects to a particular finding, any objection is forfeited. Carter v. Mitchell, 829 F.3d 455, 472 (6th Cir. 2016). But the district court is always free to conduct its own de novo review and reject or modify any part of the magistrate judge's report. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150; Boerste v. Ellis, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-298, 2021 WL 5449003, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2021).
Jones seeks to bar the use at trial of any communications between him and his wife, as well as any derivative evidence under the marital-communications privilege. Marital Communications Motion at 1. Gibbs and Jones say they married on May 4. Id. The next day, police interrogated Gibbs about her allegedly stolen vehicle, believing Jones used it to commit a robbery. Id. Gibbs told the officers that Jones called her and said “that the police was behind him and to report the car stolen.” Id. Jones wishes to suppress this statement as a marital communication and suppress any evidence obtained as a result of the statement. The Government responded that while it wouldn't elicit the statement at trial, it was free to use the statement for investigatory purposes, such that any resulting evidence shouldn't be suppressed on that basis. Response to Marital Communications Motion (DN 32) at 1. Magistrate Judge Edwards agreed with the Government. R...
To continue reading
Request your trial