United States v. Lawton
| Decision Date | 20 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16–40036–01–DDC |
| Citation | 216 F.Supp.3d 1281 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Quentin Kirk LAWTON, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Jared S. Maag, Office of United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff.
This matter comes before the court on defendant Quentin Kirk Lawton's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 32). Defendant contends that the court must suppress (1) evidence seized from his cell phone; (2) statements he made in Larry's Shortstop parking lot; and (3) statements he made during an interrogation at the Topeka Police Station. Defendant contends that law enforcement officials initially lacked a constitutional basis to stop him in Larry's Shortstop parking lot. And, defendant contends that the police obtained his statements there in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The government counters, contending that the officers had probable cause when they stopped defendant and that the government did not violate defendant's Miranda rights. For reasons explained below, the court grants in part and denies in part defendant's Motion to Suppress.
The court takes the following facts from evidence presented at the September 22, 2016 motion hearing, and, where undisputed, from the parties' briefs.
On April 23, 2016, federal agents and task force officers, including the United States Marshals Service, sought to arrest Orlando J. Collins on an outstanding federal arrest warrant. The marshals had been trying to locate Mr. Collins since April 2016. In his role as part of the fugitive task force, Deputy Viera was attempting to locate Mr. Collins. Deputy Viera's responsibilities included conducting interviews, conducting phone surveillance, and mining for social media information about Mr. Collins. In his investigation, Deputy Viera found a video on Mr. Collin's Facebook page. The video featured Mr. Collins shooting firearms with defendant's son, Quentin Lawton, Jr.
Around 2:00 P.M. on April 23, 2016, the marshals began receiving information from a phone that they believed to be associated with Mr. Collins. That information led them to believe that Mr. Collins was located somewhere on the grounds of the Country Club Motel in Topeka, Kansas. Federal agents and officers set up surveillance around the Country Club Motel. Around this time, an officer retrieved a guest list from the motel staff. The list revealed that Stanley Lawton, defendant's father, was renting room 28 at the motel. This was noteworthy for the officers because a torched vehicle had been discovered near Stanley Lawton's home the day before and their subject, Mr. Collins, was the suspected perpetrator.
Deputy Viera and Deputy Sinclair parked Deputy Viera's Chevy Tahoe in a parking lot near the motel. From their surveillance point, the deputies could see the entrance and exit to the motel's parking lot. The deputies waited for a long time in the car and while they were waiting, the deputies used their computers to gather more information. The deputies learned that defendant had been involved in a prior federal case and was currently in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons designated to a reentry center known as the Grossman Center Halfway House. The deputies also learned that defendant had a suspended driver's license.
At about 9:15 P.M. on April 23, 2016, Deputy United States Marshal Andrew saw a man leave room 28 at the motel, get in a car, and drive out of the motel parking lot. Deputy Andrew transmitted the following information to Deputies Viera and Sinclair by radio: a subject had come out of room 28 wearing a white shirt, blue jeans, and a white head wrap on his head; and the man was driving out of the motel parking lot in a black four-door sedan. Deputy United States Marshals Viera and Sinclair watched the car leave the motel parking lot. Deputies Viera and Sinclair followed the sedan in their vehicle and it eventually turned into the parking lot for Larry's Shortstop, a retail convenience store located south of the Country Club Motel.
The deputies were able to identify the car's license plate number. After broadcasting the number over the radio, the deputies learned that the car was registered to Stanley Lawton, defendant's father. The deputies watched as the man entered the convenience store and they knew it was the same man who left room 28 at the motel.
The man left the convenience store. When he got back in the sedan, the deputies parked their vehicle behind his sedan. They also had activated their vehicle's emergency lights. They parked their vehicle so it would be difficult for the sedan to pull out of the parking lot. Deputy Viera approached the driver side door while Deputy Sinclair approached and stood near the passenger side door. Deputies Viera and Sinclair were each wearing typical field clothing for deputies—cargo pants, polo shirts with the Marshal Service insignia, tactical vests, and duty belts. Two other task force officers, Agent Salmon and Agent Bloomfield with the Topeka Police Department, walked up and stood a few feet behind the sedan. None of the officers drew their weapons.
Deputy Viera made contact with the man when he opened his driver side door. As the deputies approached, Deputy Viera had observed the man attempting to use his cell phone. So Deputy Viera reached inside the vehicle, took the man's cell phone, and set it on the roof of the car so he couldn't use it. As soon as Deputy Viera got to the door he recognized the man who had driven the sedan to the convenience store as defendant Quentin Lawton, Sr. Deputy Viera asked defendant where he was coming from. Defendant replied that he had come from Larry's Shortstop. Deputy Viera asked again, explaining that he meant before he entered the convenience store. Defendant again replied that he had been at Larry's Shortstop. Deputy Viera informed defendant that lying to him was a federal offense. Defendant continued to tell Deputy Viera he had been at the Shortstop. For simplicity, this Memorandum and Order refers to Deputy Viera's exchange with the defendant in the parking lot as "the first interview."
Deputy Viera detained defendant and called the Topeka Police Department for back up. A Topeka police officer arrived at Larry's Shortstop parking lot at about 9:45 P.M. The defendant was taken out of his car, handcuffed, and placed in the backseat of the Topeka Police Officer's car. The Topeka Police officer kept defendant in the car awaiting instructions from the deputies until defendant was eventually taken to the Topeka Police Department. Defendant was then led to an interrogation room where his handcuffs were removed. At about 1:10 A.M. on April 24, 2016, two FBI task force officers read defendant his Miranda rights and began interrogating defendant. This Memorandum and Order refers to these exchanges at the Topeka Police Department as "the second interview."
In his brief and at the September 22, 2016 hearing, defendant contended that the court should suppress the following evidence: (1) any evidence discovered on defendant's cell phone; (2) defendant's statements to Deputies Viera and Sinclair in the first interview in Larry's Shortstop parking lot; and (3) defendant's statements to task force officers at the Topeka Police Department during the second interview. Defendant argues that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments require the court to suppress this evidence. First, defendant contends that law enforcement seized defendant in Larry's Shortstop parking lot without a constitutional basis to do so. Second, defendant contends that the deputies had defendant in custody in the parking lot and interrogated defendant in violation of his Miranda rights. Third, defendant contends that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest defendant. And, at the hearing on September 22, 2016, defendant asserted that his statements to law enforcement officers during the second interview should be suppressed because defendant did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. The court addresses each argument, in turn, below.
Defendant argues that law enforcement officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they seized him, and, as fruit of the illegal seizure, the court should suppress any evidence acquired from defendant's cell phone. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. To determine whether defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated, the court must first determine when during the encounter the Fourth Amendment became relevant. United States v. Beamon , 576 Fed.Appx. 753, 756 (10th Cir. 2014). Then, "[i]f the Fourth Amendment is implicated," the court "must determine the nature of the encounter and whether it was justified by either reasonable suspicion or probable cause ‘at that time—not a moment before.’ " Id. The exclusionary rule, which the Supreme Court formulated to remedy Fourth Amendment violations, prohibits the government from admitting evidence acquired as a direct or indirect result of an unconstitutional search or seizure. Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471, 485, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
A person is seized at the juncture when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained. United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). "To determine whether a particular encounter constitutes a seizure, a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter." Florida v. Bostick , ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Carmona, Case No. 18-10064-JWB
...unlawful ... [initial] interrogation" of Defendant. Id. Judge Crabtree summarized the relevant standards in United States v. Lawton, 216 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1294-95 (D. Kan. 2016):The Supreme Court has held that the "subsequent administration of Miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a vol......
-
Arnold v. Maxmind, Inc.
... ... 161309JTMUnited States District Court, D. Kansas.Signed October 20, 2016216 F.Supp.3d 1277Joseph A. Schremmer, Randall K ... ...