United States v. Martinez
| Docket Number | 2:22-cr-00086-JAW |
| Decision Date | 28 December 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LUIS MARTINEZ |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
A criminal defendant brings a motion to suppress evidence arguing that a sheriff's deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by unlawfully prolonging a traffic stop and converting a Terry frisk into an unlawful search. Because the Court finds that the deputy had reasonable suspicion to deviate from the mission of the traffic stop and had not ruled out that an object in the defendant's pants could be a weapon, the Court denies the defendant's motion.
On May 24, 2022, Luis Martinez was charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Criminal Compl. (ECF No. 1). On July 7, 2022, a federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment against Mr. Martinez charging him with 1) possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine on September 5, 2021 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 2) possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine on February 8, 2022 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and 3) possession of a firearm by a felon on February 8, 2022 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Indictment (ECF No. 18). The indictment also contained two forfeiture allegations. Id. at 2-3.
On November 25, 2022, Mr. Martinez filed a motion to suppress evidence related to a traffic stop on September 5, 2021.[1] Def.'s First Mot. to Suppress (ECF No. 49). On January 18, 2023, the Government responded to Mr. Martinez's motion to suppress, Gov't's Omnibus Resp. to Def.'s Mots. to Suppress (ECF No. 60) (Gov't's Opp'n), and on the following day, January 19, 2023, it filed additional documents in support of its opposition, including law enforcement reports and body-camera video. Attachs. 1-11 (ECF No. 61) (Gov't's Suppress Attachs.). On March 1, 2023, Mr. Martinez replied. Def.'s Reply to the Gov't's Omnibus Opp'n to Mots. to Suppress (ECF No. 69) (Def.'s Reply). Over the Government's objection, the Court granted Mr. Martinez's motion for an evidentiary hearing, Order (ECF No. 70), and held the hearing on May 18, 2023. Min. Entry (ECF No. 84).
After the conclusion of the May 18, 2023 evidentiary hearing, the parties filed post-hearing memoranda. On November 3, 2023, Mr. Martinez filed his post-hearing memorandum. Def.'s Post-Hearing Mem. in Support of Mot. to Suppress (ECF No. 116) (Def.'s Mem.). On November 6, 2023, the Government filed its post-hearing memorandum. Gov't's Post Hearing Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Suppress (ECF No. 120) (Gov't's Mem.). On November 20, 2023, Mr. Martinez responded to the Government's memorandum. Def.'s Resp. to the Gov't's Post-Hearing Mem. (ECF No. 123) (Def.'s Reply Mem.). That same day, the Government responded to Mr. Martinez's memorandum. Gov't's Post-Hearing Reply Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Suppress (ECF No. 124) (Gov't's Reply Mem.).
Deputy Nathan Chisholm[2] first became a law enforcement officer when he joined the police department for the town of Van Buren, Maine in 2013. Tr. of Proc. at 20:3-5 (Suppression Tr.). In January 2020, Deputy Chisholm joined the Aroostook County Sheriff's Office, where he is still employed. Id. at 20:8-9. In October 2018, Deputy Chisholm was certified as a K-9 handler, and his K-9, Jazz, is a certified narcotics-detection dog. Id. at 20:17-21:9. During Deputy Chisholm's K-9 training, he was taught drug interdiction, which became his specialty. Id. at 21:15-20; 22:1820.
At the suppression hearing, Deputy Chisholm testified that he was familiar with the drug trade in Aroostook County, including how drugs enter the county. Id. at 23:16-18, 23:24-24:2. Deputy Chisholm further testified that he would participate in weekly meetings with the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency (MDEA), during which the MDEA “would share information with me on what areas to focus on and what things to look for when out on patrol.” Id. at 24:5-10. In these meetings, Deputy Chisholm learned that “large quantities of drugs were being supplied from larger cities like Portland, Bangor, Lewiston specifically.” Id. at 24:16-19. He was also advised that drug dealers coming to Aroostook County would “utilize local users or local people to . . . get around” and “also utilize hotels or local users for residency while they deliver or deal drugs.” Id. at 46:15-21.
Van Buren, Maine is a town of roughly 2,000 people, and Deputy Chisholm testified that he is familiar with the town's residents. Id. at 25:17-21. In 2021, after the town's police department disbanded, the Aroostook County Sheriff's Office reassumed responsibility for policing in Van Buren. Id. at 20:12-13; 25:10-13. During the suppression hearing, Deputy Chisholm testified that Kennedy Terrace, a low-income housing development at the northern end of Van Buren, “is our trouble area” because there are “a lot of drug issues over there, a lot of thefts, a lot of burglaries, domestic violence issues.” Id. 28:10-29:1.
Deputy Chisholm has received one reprimand during his time at the Aroostook County Sheriff's Office. On July 31, 2022, Deputy Chisholm used deadly force against a suspect. Mot. to Suppress Hr'g, Giglio Ex. 4, Reprimand. After the incident, Deputy Chisholm “indicated he thought he had his body camera on during the altercation but when he went to turn it off, he had actually turned it on.” Id. As a result, Deputy Chisholm received a reprimand that concluded, “Due to not activating the body worn camera Sgt. Chisholm was in violation of the Wearable Video Camera (WVC) policy.” Id. The reprimand stated that “Sgt. Chisholm needs to utilize his wearable video camera at all times according to policy.” Id. Deputy Chisholm acknowledged the reprimand by signing it. Id.
Between approximately 11:00 pm and 11:30 pm on September 4, 2021, Deputy Chisholm drove from Caribou, Maine, to Van Buren, Maine. Suppression Tr. at 28:212. When Deputy Chisholm arrived in Van Buren, he drove through Kennedy Terrace. Id. at 28:13-14. There, he noticed activity outside the apartment of “S,” whom he had previously charged with drug possession. Id. at 29:4-23. Although Deputy Chisholm did not witness any criminal activity, he nonetheless found the activity significant because it was close to the first of the month, when the residents of Kennedy Terrace receive their checks from the government for welfare assistance. Id. at 29:23-30:5. After driving through Kennedy Terrace, Deputy Chisholm parked on Main Street to conduct radar surveillance. Id. at 30:9-14.
At approximately 12:15 am on September 5, 2021, Deputy Chisholm observed a black sedan travelling through the town of Van Buren. Gov't's Suppress Attachs., Excerpt of Chisholm Original Narrative at 1 (Chisholm Narrative). Deputy Chisholm's radar identified the vehicle as traveling 45 miles-per-hour in a 30 mile-per-hour zone, so he initiated a traffic stop for speeding. Id. at 1-2. According to Deputy Chisholm, it would have taken backup officers twenty-five to thirty minutes to arrive at the location where he stopped the car. Suppression Tr. at 47:3-10.
Upon reaching the car, Deputy Chisholm recognized the driver, Joshua Castonguay, and the front passenger, Kayla Carmichael, from past police interactions but did not recognize the rear passenger, later identified as Luis Martinez. Id. Mr. Castonguay had previously disclosed to Deputy Chisholm that he had a habit of using illegal drugs as of 2016 or 2017 and 2019. Suppression Tr. at 37:20-24, 38:12-16, 39:5-19.
Ms. Carmichael had also told Deputy Chisholm as recently as 2019 that she used illegal drugs. Id. at 20:21-41:19. Deputy Chisholm knew that Mr. Castonguay and Ms. Carmichael lived at Kennedy Terrace, directly across from the apartment of “S.” Id. at 43:2-10.
Deputy Chisholm asked Mr. Castonguay where he was headed and why he was in such a hurry. Gov't's Suppress Attachs., Attach. 1, Chisholm First Body Camera Video at 00:28:24 (First Video). Mr. Castonguay responded that he was heading to Presque Isle (an approximately 35-mile drive from Van Buren) and did not realize how fast he was going. Id. at 00:28:26. Deputy Chisholm asked all three vehicle occupants for identification and asked Mr. Castonguay for the vehicle's registration and insurance information. Id. Mr. Castonguay and Ms. Carmichael responded that they did not have their licenses with them, while Mr. Martinez handed Deputy Chisholm a Maine driver's license listing his address as a P.O. box in Portland, Maine. Id. at 00:28:44-00:29:06. Deputy Chisholm testified that Mr. Castonguay's lack of a driver's license did not “raise[] concern” because he could “find him and get his date of birth another way.” Suppression Tr. at 42:14-18.
During his interaction with Mr. Castonguay, Deputy Chisholm asked whether the group was headed to Caribou, to which Mr. Castonguay responded that they were and that “they were looking for a hotel for Mr. Martinez.”[3] Suppression Tr. At 45:3 13.
Deputy Chisholm asked Mr. Castonguay if there were any drugs alcohol, or firearms in the vehicle and received a negative response. First Video at 00:29:2000:29:40; Suppression Tr. at 50:17-25. Deputy Chisholm then asked Mr. Castonguay “if my canine ran around the outside [of the vehicle], would he alert to anything?” and “any issue with me looking through the vehicle?” First Video at 00:29:20-00:29:40; Suppression Tr. at 50:17-25, 51:9-13. Mr. Castonguay responded “no” or “nope” to each question. First Video at...
To continue reading
Request your trial