United States v. Jones
| Decision Date | 30 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | CR-22-00376-JD |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS JEROME JONES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Before the Court is Defendant Louis Jerome Jones' Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements and Brief in Support [Doc No. 27], which the United States timely opposed [Doc. No 45]. A hearing was held on December 13, 2022, at which the Court also heard the Jackson v. Denno[1] issues raised by Mr. Jones in his Omnibus Motion in Limine [Doc. No 40].[2]
At the hearing, Mr. Jones personally appeared with his appointed counsel, Assistant Federal Public Defender Traci Lynn Rhone and the United States appeared through Assistant United States Attorneys Daniel Gridley and Bow Bottomly. The Court received the testimony of two witnesses: Oklahoma City Police Department (“OCPD”) Lt. Joshua Castlebury and OCPD Officer Dakota Boxwell. Both parties submitted as evidence the previously submitted videos, which were conventionally filed of record at [Doc. Nos. 28, 44, 46, and 57], and portions of the videos were played during the hearing. The Court has reviewed the videos in their entirety, which include Air One surveillance video of the traffic stop; audio and video footage from the body camera worn by Officer Boxwell; exterior dashcam footage from Lt. Castlebury's police car; and backseat audio and video footage from inside Lt. Castlebury's police car and Officer Boxwell's police car-all of which were recorded on August 3, 2022. Upon consideration of the filings and evidence presented, and having reviewed the relevant law, the Court issues its ruling.
Mr. Jones is charged in a one-count Indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm on or about July 2022 through on or about August 3, 2022, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [Doc. No. 1]. Mr. Jones' jury trial is set on the January 10, 2023 jury trial docket. [Doc. Nos. 53, 56].
The charge stems from a search of Mr. Jones' vehicle following a traffic stop on the I-35 service road between Southeast 44th Street and Southeast 51st Street on August 3, 2022, in Oklahoma City. Mr. Jones seeks to suppress the firearm obtained from his vehicle by police and the statements he made to Lt. Castlebury and Officer Boxwell following the traffic stop.
Mr. Jones asserts that the traffic stop was pretextual in nature and unjustified at its inception because there was no observable traffic violation as seen in Lt. Castlebury's dashcam video or in the Air One surveillance video. He also contends that the vehicle search was not reasonably related to the justification for the initial traffic stop and that the traffic stop was prolonged without reasonable suspicion. Additionally, Mr. Jones asserts that he unequivocally invoked his Miranda rights with Lt. Castlebury and that Officer Boxwell should not have initiated contact with him after invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights. As a result, he contends that his statements to both officers were not voluntarily made and, as such, are inadmissible at trial.
Counsel for the United States, citing to Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), concedes it was a pretextual traffic stop but asserts that the subjective intent of the officer conducting the traffic stop is irrelevant to the question of reasonableness. The United States also asserts that Lt. Castlebury did observe a traffic violation and that the timing and scope of the stop was very limited in duration and in accordance with normal police protocol after Mr. Jones consented to a search of his vehicle. Finally, the United States maintains that under the totality of the circumstances, Mr. Jones voluntarily waived his Miranda rights when speaking with Officer Boxwell, and that prior to speaking to Officer Boxwell, Mr. Jones, although upset, did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel or his right to remain silent.
On August 3, 2022, members of the OCPD's Violent Crimes Apprehension Team (“VCAT”) were conducting surveillance of a gang-related funeral near the area of Northeast 36th Street and I-35. The deceased, Mark Anthony Johnson, was a Blood gang member who had been shot and killed, and VCAT's purpose in monitoring the funeral was twofold: (1) because of a concern for public safety; and (2) because the deceased's family or personnel from the funeral home had requested police assistance. In the month leading up to the funeral, there had been an ongoing feud between the Bloods and the Shotgun Crips, which are rival gangs in Oklahoma City. The ongoing feud had included several shootings, some of which resulted in homicides, and one of which transpired at a family gathering after a funeral. This particular funeral was concerning because it was taking place in Shotgun Crip territory.
Lt. Castlebury testified that VCAT has monitored gang-related funerals in the Oklahoma City area for some time.[4] In his experience, follow-up violence, including retaliatory shootings, oftentimes occurs at or shortly after funerals. He advised that gang members come together at these funerals, “emotions are high,” and generally most of the gang members are armed. This presents a public safety issue. Lt. Castlebury recalled conducting surveillance at one gang-related funeral where a shooting occurred in the parking lot. He advised that VCAT has conducted multiple firearm arrests pursuant to their surveillance of gang-related funerals.
On this particular day, detectives were set up outside the funeral home in unmarked police cars and several marked patrol units were also nearby. Officers in the marked patrol cars were there to respond to any disturbances at the funeral home and to conduct traffic stops. Lt. Castlebury was in his marked police car near the funeral home, and he was acting in his role as supervisor and also assuming the same duties as the rest of the team present.
OCPD Inspector Michael Klika and Officer Wes Cadena, both OCPD detectives with the violent crimes investigations unit, were conducting surveillance from inside unmarked police cars in the parking lot of the funeral home. Around 1:30 p.m., Lt. Castlebury heard Inspector Klika on the police radio indicate that he had observed the driver of a black SUV leave the funeral home armed with a handgun.
Detectives Cadena and Sellers[5] began following the black SUV in an unmarked police car. As Detective Cadena followed the black SUV, he continued to provide information over the police radio as to where the black SUV was located. Air One, the police helicopter, was also surveilling the black SUV. Lt. Castlebury was in the area of Southeast 44th Street and the I-35 service road when he first observed the black SUV turn southbound on the service road. Lt. Castlebury testified that it was clear to him from the directions of Detective Cadena and Air One which vehicle the officers were referring to on the police radio.[6]
Lt. Castlebury testified that he “fell in behind the vehicle” and observed the driver commit a traffic violation in the area of Southeast 44th Street and 51st Street- specifically, the vehicle on the driver's side was straddling lane lines of traffic without signaling in violation of Oklahoma City Municipal Code § 32-191. Lt. Castlebury estimated he was about 50 yards behind the vehicle when he observed the traffic violation.[7] Lt. Castlebury readily conceded on cross-examination that this was a pretextual traffic stop based on information that a gang member had a firearm inside his vehicle, and an attempt was made to observe a traffic violation to conduct a traffic stop, complete an enforcement action on the traffic stop, and investigate the firearm offense.
Lt. Castlebury testified that the lane violation is not visible from his dashcam video, and he offered several possible explanations for why this is. First, his dashcam activates one of three ways-manually, when the emergency lights are activated, or when another camera activates close by. Additionally, the way the software is set up, the video footage from his front dashcam will go back 30 seconds prior to its activation, but it only captures video from the 30 seconds prior and not audio. Thus, he stated that it is possible that the lane violation occurred more than 30 seconds prior to him activating his emergency lights, which would indicate why it is not captured on the video. Lt.
Castlebury also indicated that there was a slight crest in the road that could have blocked the camera's view. Additionally, the camera is positioned to the right of his rearview mirror, which presents a different angle from his view of the road, and he admitted that the camera is only two-dimensional and does not capture everything. However, he testified that he clearly observed the lane violation that day, and that in his opinion, and from his review of the video, the traffic violation is visible on the Air One surveillance at 13:34:25.[8]
Lt. Castlebury effectuated a traffic stop for the lane violation shortly after the Southeast 51st Street exit. Based on the information that the driver had left a gang-related funeral and was armed, Lt. Castlebury stated that he approached this traffic stop as if there was a gun in the vehicle. He had the driver, who he identified as Mr. Jones, roll down the driver's side window, so he could see inside the vehicle as he approached. Detective Cadena arrived in his undercover vehicle as Lt. Castlebury initiated the traffic stop of Mr. Jones.
Lt Castlebury shook hands with Mr. Jones. He indicated he typically does this on all traffic stops because it helps ease the driver, initiates a conversation, and-because most people are right-handed and reach over to...
To continue reading
Request your trial