United States v. Leake
| Decision Date | 26 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 19-cr-194 (KBJ) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ROBERT LEAKE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
On June 6, 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Defendant Robert Leake of four offenses related to his alleged unlawful possession of illegal controlled substances and a firearm on May 28, 2019, while Leake was in the laundry room of the apartment complex where he was residing. (See Indictment, ECF No. 1.)1 Before this Court at present is Leake's motion to suppress the tangible evidence that was recovered incident to his arrest for those offenses. (See Def.'s Mot. to Suppress ("Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 18.) Leake argues that he was subjected to an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment when two District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") officers entered the laundry room without a warrant and arrested him, allegedly without sufficient cause. (See Def.'s Mot. at 1 (); see also Def.'s Reply in Supp. of Mot. ("Def'sReply"), ECF No. 21, 1-6.)2 Leake also argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the officers used force to execute the arrest. (See Def.'s Mot. at 1 (); see also Def.'s Mot. at 3-4.)
This Court held an evidentiary hearing with respect to Leake's suppression motion on March 5, 2020, during which it heard testimony from two witnesses: Officer Wilmino Pantaleon (one of the arresting officers) and a defense character witness, Ms. Kyia Branham. (See Minute Entry of Mar. 5, 2020.) The Court also received evidence, including videotaped footage of the events preceding, during, and after Leake's arrest. (See Gov't Exs. 1, 2; Def.'s Exs. V1, V2, V3; see also Gov't Ex. List, ECF No. 31; Def.'s Ex. List, ECF No. 32.)3 During a separate hearing held on May 5, 2020, counsel for the prosecution and the defense presented legal arguments to the Court concerning this evidence. (See Minute Entry of May 5, 2020.) As explained fully below, upon careful consideration of the evidence and arguments, this Court has made numerous findings concerning the facts related to events that preceded and encompassed Leake'sarrest, and it has also reached several conclusions of law related to Leake's Fourth Amendment arguments.
In short, and as explained below, the Court finds that Leake's stance in the corner of the laundry room was suspicious, and that upon approaching him, Officer Pantaleon observed Leake holding a small clear plastic baggie containing a powder-like substance. Officer Pantaleon reasonably believed that the baggie contained narcotics, and as Officer Pantaleon grabbed Leake to investigate this suspicious activity, Leake attempted to flee, which resulted in a prolonged physical struggle between the police officers and Leake. Leake was not arrested for Fourth Amendment purposes until the officers saw that he was carrying a gun on his person. And given these findings, the Court further concludes that the officers' actions were reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. Officer Pantaleon had a reasonable articulable suspicion that justified the initial investigatory stop of Leake, and he had probable cause to arrest Leake when the gun fell out of Leake's waistband. Moreover, Leake does not have Fourth Amendment standing to claim that the officers' presence in the building's laundry room constituted a constitutional violation from the outset, nor was the officers' use of force to detain and arrest Leake unreasonable given his active resistance (which was captured clearly on the officers' body-worn cameras and the laundry room video surveillance system). Therefore, Leake's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the officers arrested him on May 28, 2019, and, accordingly, Leake's motion to suppress the tangible evidence recovered at the time of his arrest must be DENIED. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will follow.
The events leading up to Leake's arrest occurred at Edgewood Commons, a residential community in the northeastern quadrant of the District of Columbia. 4 Edgewood Commons consists of multiple apartment buildings of various sizes; the entire complex takes up several city blocks. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 8:1-8.) Leake resides in a building in the Edgewood Commons complex located at 525 Edgewood St. NE (hereinafter, the "525 Building") (see Mar. 5 Tr. 9:17), which is separated by a common plaza area from 601 Edgewood St. NE (hereinafter, the "601 Building"), a large apartment building in the same complex (see Mar. 5 Tr. 8:10-12; 13:24-14:5). There are approximately 200 units in the 601 Building. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 55:16-17.) The 601 Building also houses after-school programs for children in the community. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 10:5-10.) The program for younger students takes place in the basement of the 601 Building, and the program for older students occurs in a space adjacent to the 601 Building. (Id.)
Notably, a resident of any of the buildings in the Edgewood Commons complex has a key card that accesses only his own building—that is, the key card for one building does not work on any other building in the complex. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 37:20-25.) However, the doors of the 601 Building are often propped open, because there is "heavy traffic at Edgewood[.]" (Mar. 5 Tr. 27:1-7.) In particular, "most residents" enter through the side door of the 601 Building due to its proximity to the adjacentparking lot and the fact that the side door is "the most practical entrance to get into the building[.]" (Mar. 5 Tr. 12:13-14; see also Mar. 5 Tr. 18:22-19:1.) Thus, although the side door of the 601 Building is intended to be locked and only accessible to building management (see Mar. 5 Tr. 41:21-42:3), that door is frequently held open, or otherwise propped open, for use by Edgewood Commons residents (see Mar. 5 Tr. 30:15-22).
The laundry room in the 601 Building is large, and has a significant number of laundry machines, in order to accommodate the number of residents in the 601 Building. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 16:3-10.) It is also easily accessible through the side door of the 601 Building and is located in the basement of the building, across the hallway from the after-school program for younger children. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 28:6-10; 28:22-30:9.)
Officer Pantaleon had been an officer with the MPD for more than five years at the time of his testimony concerning Leake's arrest. (Mar. 5 Tr. 46:20-22.)5 In the spring of 2019, Officer Pantaleon regularly patrolled at Edgewood Commons, due to the high crime nature of the neighborhood (see Mar. 5 Tr. 89:23-90:2), and he visited the 601 Building, in particular, "once or twice a week," entering the building through the side door. (Mar. 5 Tr. 57:23-58:4.) The MPD officers generally have a good relationship with the Edgewood Commons security officers, who have asked MPDofficers to "stop by" the property regularly while they are on patrol. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 64:1-7, 91:8-13, 99:11-13.)
Officers Pantaleon and Aaron Follman were on patrol in the Edgewood neighborhood, at approximately 6:43 PM, on May 28, 2019. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 65:3-66:5.) These officers' sergeants had directed them to patrol in that neighborhood on that day. (Mar. 5 Tr. 47:12-19, 51:23-25.) Officers Pantaleon and Follman entered the 601 Building through the side door, which was unlocked, and because the side door lacked a handle, Officer Pantaleon used his fingertips to pry the door open. (Mar. 5 Tr. 57:11-15; Pantaleon BWC, Gov't Ex. 1A, at 22:44:10-12.)6 The unlocked side door opened into a stairwell, and Officer Pantaleon walked up one short flight of steps and then entered a long hallway through the first door that he came to off of the stairwell. (Pantaleon BWC at 22:44:13-27.) While Officer Follman remained behind in the hallway (see Mar. 5 Tr. 71:15-17), Officer Pantaleon decided to "check the laundry room" because "usually people are in there doing stuff" (Mar. 5 Tr. 58:11-13). Officer Pantaleon walked down the hallway until he reached the open door of the building's laundry room (on the right side) through which he then entered. (See Pantaleon BWC at 22:44:27-49.)
Upon walking into the open door of the laundry room, Officer Pantaleon immediately spotted a man standing in the corner of the room, with his back to OfficerPantaleon and his face close to the wall. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 58:18-21; Pantaleon BWC at 22:44:55-45:01.) The man—who was later identified as Leake—was standing between two vending machines that were perpendicular to one another and was looking down at his hands. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 58:18-21; Pantaleon BWC at 22:44:55-45:01.) Officer Pantaleon testified that he thought "it was odd" to find a person standing in that fashion, so he began walking through the laundry room toward Leake. (Mar. 5 Tr. 60:10-13.) As he approached Leake from behind, Officer Pantaleon saw that Leake was "playing with something" in his hands, so he said to Leake: (Mar. 5 Tr. 68:9-16.)7
Leake quickly turned his body away from the wall to glance briefly in Officer Pantaleon's direction, at which point Officer Pantaleon saw a clear plastic baggie in Leake's hand. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 60:13-14; Pantaleon BWC at 22:45:08-10.) The baggie contained a light-colored powder-like substance. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 60:13-15, 69:7-8.)8 And after seeing the baggie in Leake's hand, Officer Pantaleon approached Leake and grabbed Leake's left arm. (See Mar. 5 Tr. 69:15-18; Pantaleon BWC at 22:45:13-14.) When Officer Pantaleon cornered him and made physical contact in this way, Leakeattempted to "run through" Officer Pantaleon to flee, and a struggle...
To continue reading
Request your trial