United States v. Maffei

• Decision Date: 11 October 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 18-cr-00174-YGR-1
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Martha Julia MAFFEI, Defendant.

417 F.Supp.3d 1212

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Martha Julia MAFFEI, Defendant.

Case No. 18-cr-00174-YGR-1

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed October 11, 2019

417 F.Supp.3d 1216

Samantha Schott, U.S. Attorney's Office, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff.

Jerome Emory Matthews, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Oakland, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 44

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Court Judge

Defendant has been charged in a twenty-seven count indictment related to an alleged scheme to defraud, including charges of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, laundering in monetary instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity in violation

417 F.Supp.3d 1217

of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.¹ (Dkt. No. 9 ("Indictment").) The Court considers defendant's second motion to suppress evidence. Therein, defendant argues that the San Mateo Police Department ("SMPD") violated her Fourth Amendment rights by unreasonably seizing her for the duration of an unduly prolonged traffic stop and conducting a warrantless search of her car, in which she was a passenger. Based thereupon, defendant asks the Court to suppress all fruits of the vehicle search, including evidence recovered from the search of defendant's home pursuant to a search warrant obtained following the search of her vehicle.

Having carefully considered the motion and the papers submitted,² as well as oral argument from counsel on July 12, 2019, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to suppress and excludes from evidence all fruits of the vehicle search, including evidence recovered from the search of defendant's home pursuant to a search warrant obtained following the search of her vehicle.

I. BACKGROUND ³

On Sunday, November 5, 2017⁴ at approximately 5:19 pm, SMPD Officer Haobsh pulled over a Toyota Camry (the "Vehicle") after observing a broken tail light and the driver's failure to yield to pedestrians.⁵ The driver, defendant's husband, pulled into a Walgreens parking lot, stopped, and "abruptly move[d] his car forward another 25 feet." The driver later explained that he believed it "safer to move into a parking stall." Officer Haobsh does not dispute the driver's assessment. When Officer Haobsh approached the open driver-side window, he found defendant's husband, Michael Maffei, in the driver seat and defendant, Martha Maffei, in the passenger seat. Officer Haobsh subsequently indicated that "while speaking with them" he smelled a strong odor of marijuana "emanating from the open car window." Officer Haobsh asked Mr. Maffei for his

417 F.Supp.3d 1218

driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Mr. Maffei complied with the officer's request for his driver's license and indicated that defendant Martha Maffei was the owner of the Vehicle. Officer Haobsh then asked defendant for her own driver's license as well. Defendant provided all to the officer.

Officer Haobsh returned to his patrol car and conducted a DMV record scan of both licenses, which indicated that Mr. Maffei's license was suspended.⁶ Officer Haobsh began to complete a traffic citation but stopped to call for backup and conduct a search of the Vehicle. In response to the request for backup, two officers arrived approximately nine minutes after the initial stop. Once the additional officers arrived, Officer Haobsh approached the Vehicle again and told Mr. Maffei that his license was suspended, to which Mr. Maffei replied that he thought he had already fixed the issue.⁷ The record scan apparently did not show any violations or holds for defendant Martha Maffei.

Officer Haobsh then ordered Mr. Maffei to exit the Vehicle, "[d]ue to the obvious smell of marijuana coming from the [V]ehicle and a required tow inventory in accordance with [ California Vehicle Code Section] 22651(p) [.]"⁸ It is not clear from the record whether Officer Haobsh told Mr. Maffei or defendant that he smelled marijuana and needed to conduct a search at this point. Once Mr. Maffei exited the Vehicle, Officer Haobsh pat-searched him for weapons and instructed him to remain in the back seat of one of the police patrol cars present. Officer Haobsh then instructed defendant Martha Maffei to exit the Vehicle, visually inspected her for weapons, and directed her sit on the curb.⁹ Officer Haobsh requested a tow for the Vehicle.

Officer Haobsh next asked both defendant and Mr. Maffei for consent to search the Vehicle. Both declined, but Mr. Maffei responded that there was marijuana in the car and that he had a cannabis card. The government contends that at this point, Officer Haobsh had probable cause to believe that the Vehicle contained contraband or evidence of the following crimes: (i) driving under the influence of marijuana,

417 F.Supp.3d 1219

(ii) possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana,¹⁰ and (iii) possession of open containers of marijuana in a vehicle. The government further contends that "because the rear tail light was broken and thus the car could not be driven legally, it was parked in a private parking lot, and [Mr.] Maffei had been driving dangerously on a suspended license, Officer Haobsh believed that the car would be towed pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22651(p)" and inventoried before removal. (Opp. at 4.)

Officer Haobsh then conducted a search of the Vehicle. Initially, Officer Haobsh found a toiletry bag which contained 48 blue pills that appeared to be Oxycodone Hydrochloride, a Schedule II controlled substance. The toiletry bag did not contain any prescription bottles or labels, but it did contain a bag of what Officer Haobsh believed to be marijuana (later identified as 4.3 grams of marijuana). Officer Haobsh asked Mr. Maffei if the toiletry bag belonged to him, and he initially stated yes, but then changed his position and claimed that only the marijuana belonged to him. Based thereon, the government contends that at this point Officer Haobsh had probable cause to believe that further evidence of transport/sale of controlled substances and possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana would be found within the Vehicle and so continued to search.

Next, Officer Haobsh found $11,000 in $100 bills inside a brown zipper pouch inside a black pursue on the front floorboard, as well as an iPhone and an additional $971 from a wallet inside the purse. When Officer Haobsh looked underneath the front passenger seat, he found several flat rate United States Postal Service envelopes addressed to defendant from different people across the United States, as well as financial documents indicating large deposits to a bank account in Nicaragua. According to the government, based on these findings, Officer Haobsh believed that the money, mailings, and large deposits were connected to the trafficking of Oxycodone pills, and continued to searched car, finding additional envelopes, financial statements, and evidence of the receipt and deposit of high-value checks from people across the United States.

Officer Haobsh then arrested defendant and Mr. Maffei for "narcotics related crimes."¹¹ Officer Haobsh advised defendant of her Miranda rights. Defendant stated that she was worried about her children and consented to officers entering the home. Officer Haobsh advised defendant that she would need to find a guardian for her children while she was in police custody. Defendant then provided consent to searching her home for any additional illegal narcotics.

SMPD officers went to defendant's home and entered it without a warrant but with defendant's consent. Upon entering the home, in plain view on top of a dresser in a bedroom, SMPD Officer Bardina found pills similar to those recovered from the toiletry bag in defendant's car, some of which were in a Ziplock bag, and some of which were in a prescription bottle with a label that described the contents as "Oxycodone

417 F.Supp.3d 1220

30 mg" in the name of a patient other than defendant or her husband. According to the government, the officers then "froze" the apartment and applied for a warrant to search the premises.

The officers subsequently obtained a warrant to search the home. In applying for the warrant, the SMPD recounted the traffic stop, the search of the Vehicle, the items found therein, the consent by defendant to do a welfare check on her minor children, and the items found in plain view at the defendant's home. A court issued the search warrant and on November 6, 2017, the SMPD conducted a search of defendant's home and obtained additional evidence.

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. CONST. amend. IV. A search is presumed unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, ...