United States v. Loines
| Decision Date | 06 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-3073 |
| Citation | 56 F.4th 1099 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron LOINES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: John J. Spellacy, JOHN J. SPELLACY & ASSOCIATES, CO., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Matthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: John J. Spellacy, JOHN J. SPELLACY & ASSOCIATES, CO., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Matthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.
Before: COLE, CLAY, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Aaron Loines appeals the district court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress preceding his guilty plea to controlled substance offenses in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) ; and a firearm offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). For the reasons set forth below, the Court REVERSES the district court's denial of Loines' motion to suppress, VACATES his conviction, and REMANDS the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In 2020, Detective Donald Kopchak of the Cleveland Police Department was aiding in an investigation into potential drug trafficking activities by Mekhel Rivers, who was subsequently charged as a co-defendant. Police investigators suspected Rivers of distributing heroin and fentanyl. During the investigation, on April 21, 2020, Kopchak observed Rivers leaving a house on East 221st Street, in Euclid, Ohio, driving a red Nissan Altima to a meeting place to sell drugs to an informant, and then returning to the same Euclid house. After numerous days of surveillance, investigators determined that Rivers lived at the East 221st Street house, obtained a search warrant for the house, and executed the warrant on April 30, 2020.
After arriving at the house, while executing the search warrant, Kopchak again observed the red Nissan Altima parked on the street near the residence, bearing the same license plate number he previously observed. Kopchak walked up to the passenger side of the car, cupped a hand to the tinted window,1 and leaned in to attempt to see into the vehicle. While leaning against the vehicle and looking through the window, Kopchak allegedly observed a Black and Mild cigar wrapper and "a folded piece of paper" in the center console of the car. (Tr. of Mot. to Suppress Hr'g, R. 142, Page ID #729). From this vantage point, Kopchak claims he was also able to view a small plastic bag that he immediately identified as "a bag of dope." (Id. at Page ID ##726, 729). Lieutenant Charles DiPenti approached the car's passenger side, looked through the window, and verbally indicated that he also saw the "bag of dope." (Id. at Page ID #728).
After Kopchak purportedly saw the "bag of dope" in the vehicle, he went into the East 221st Street residence. Officers found Loines in Rivers' residence, along with other individuals implicated in this case. Kopchak read the individuals their Miranda rights and inquired about car keys found in the home. In response, Loines volunteered that the keys were his. Kopchak then confirmed that the car keys belonged to the Nissan by using the key to sound the car alarm.
The car was then towed for an inventory search. During the inventory search of the inside of the car, the officers took a picture of the car's center console from the driver's seat. That picture showed a small plastic bag underneath a cigar wrapper, with a lottery ticket placed beside it. Law enforcement searched the vehicle after it was towed and found a firearm, the bag of suspected narcotics, a larger bag of purported narcotics,2 a press,3 and a scale.
Police did not obtain a warrant to search the automobile before or during the investigation.
Loines moved to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle, and during the motion to suppress hearing, Kopchak sought to justify the warrantless search by averring that he had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the "plain view" of the "bag of dope." Kopchak was the only witness called to testify at the hearing. To support Kopchak's testimony that he saw the "bag of dope" in plain view and thus had probable cause to search the vehicle, the government relied upon: (1) videos of Kopchak and other officers walking around and peering into the car; and (2) a photo taken while inside the car from the vantage point of one sitting in the driver's seat.
Based on Kopchak's testimony, the videos provided evidence of where the car was in proximity to the East 221st Street residence, Kopchak's position looking into the passenger side window of the car, and Kopchak's claim that he saw a "bag of dope." (Tr. of Mot. to Suppress Hr'g, R. 142, Page ID ## 721–26). The videos also provide Lieutenant DiPenti's perspective when looking through the passenger side window, without pressing his hands against the window, confirming Kopchak's observation. The photograph taken from the inside of the vehicle illustrates a lottery ticket, cigar wrapper, and beneath the cigar wrapper, a small plastic bag. At issue, however, is whether Kopchak and DiPenti could actually see the small plastic bag from outside of the car.
The government claims that the officers' body camera footage and associated screenshots "show[ ] that a person standing next to the car could see through the window, even though it was partially tinted." (Resp't's Br., ECF No. 15, 14). Furthermore, the government contends that while no cameras were "positioned at the proper angle to show the suspected drugs," the videos establish that an officer could see inside the car. (Id. at 15). Neither proposition is convincing. The videos themselves do not establish that Kopchak, from his vantage point outside the vehicle, had a sufficiently clear view to identify the presence of drugs inside the car. Instead, the videos show only the position of the officers when peering into the vehicle. In an attempt to provide a better illustration of what was seen from outside the car, screenshots of the video were provided by the government in their appellate briefing; however, those screenshots are dark to the point of being indecipherable. Besides conclusory statements as to what officers saw, the government has furnished no evidence to establish that the photo taken from inside the car was an accurate depiction of what was seen from outside the vehicle.
A grand jury indicted Loines in the underlying matter on June 11, 2020. The grand jury charged Loines with the following: one count of Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 ; one count of Possession with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) ; and one count of Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
Loines filed a motion to suppress on December 22, 2020, contending that the investigating officers conducted an unlawful warrantless search of his vehicle and any inventory search of the vehicle in question was done improperly. After the government filed its response, and Loines filed his reply, the district court conducted a suppression hearing on May 17, 2021. Kopchak was the only witness in the hearing; and the government introduced, without objection, three videos and one picture. After listening to the testimony and considering the evidence, the court orally denied Loines' suppression motion.
On September 13, 2021, Loines pleaded guilty to all three counts pursuant to a plea agreement, and reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced Loines to 93 months' imprisonment, after which Loines filed this timely appeal.
The Court reviews a district court's decision on a suppression motion for clear error as to factual findings and de novo as to conclusions of law. United States v. Jenkins , 396 F.3d 751, 757 (6th Cir. 2005). Because the appeal of the district court's denial of Loines' suppression motion is based on factual findings, this Court reviews the decision for clear error. See id. "Clear error will be found only when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Max Trucking, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp ., 802 F.3d 793, 808 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) ).
"Whether a search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment is a question of law which is reviewed de novo ." United States v. Pearce , 531 F.3d 374, 379 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Blair , 524 F.3d 740, 747 (6th Cir. 2008) ). "When a district court has denied the motion to suppress, we must ‘consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.’ " Id. (quoting United States v. Carter , 378 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc)).
The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]" U.S. Const. amend. IV. "The basic purpose of this Amendment, as recognized in countless decisions of Court, is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Camara v. Mun. Ct. of City & Cnty. of S.F ., 387 U.S. 523, 528, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). "[S]earches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (internal citations omitted). The government bears the burden of...
To continue reading
Request your trial