United States v. Mejia-Velazquez
| Decision Date | 06 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 1:21-cr-00137-SDG |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ELIZABETH MEJIA-VELAZQUEZ, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Elizabeth Mejia-Velazquez's Objections [ECF 57] to United States Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Report & Recommendation (the R&R) [ECF 53]. After careful consideration of the parties' filings and the evidentiary record,[1] and with the benefit of oral argument,[2] Mejia-Velazquez's Objections [ECF 57] are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART. The R&R [ECF 53] is ADOPTED IN PART and DECLINED IN PART. Mejia-Velazquez's motion to dismiss counts one and two as duplicitous [ECF 23] is DENIED. Her amended motions to suppress evidence [ECF 26] and statements [ECF 27] are GRANTED with regard to seizure of the cellphone and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom. Her original motions to suppress evidence [ECF 21] and statements [ECF 22] are DENIED as moot.
Working on information they received from Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, officers from the Atlanta High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) team obtained a warrant to track a cellphone believed to be in the possession of a suspected drug dealer known as “Liz.”[4] On February 23, 2021, after tracking the phone pursuant to the warrant, as many as 10 officers traveled to Mejia-Velazquez's home in Buford, Georgia to conduct a “knock and talk.”[5] Seven openly armed officers remained in the driveway area by the road, i.e., the curtilage, so as not to “overwhelm[ ] [the occupants] with a bunch of officers”;[6] HIDTA Officer Howard Spitzer, DEA Special Agent Justin Clutter, and a third officer walked to the front door and knocked.[7] When Mejia-Velazquez answered the door, Officer Spitzer asked if the three officers could enter her home and to talk about an “important matter.”[8] Mejia-Velazquez responded, “Absolutely.”[9]
Mejia-Velazquez and the three officers walked to the kitchen, where Mejia-Velazquez introduced herself as “Elizabeth,” consistent with the DEA tip that led the officers to procure the warrant to geolocate “Liz's” cellphone.[10] Officer Spitzer explained that the officers were investigating possible drug trafficking and asked if they could perform a “safety sweep” to confirm “that there was no one else in the house.”[11] Mejia-Velazquez again said, “Absolutely.”[12] The three officers and Mejia-Velazquez went upstairs and into the primary bedroom, while an unspecified number of the other HIDTA officers entered the home from the curtilage in order to sweep the remaining rooms on the home's lower levels.[13]
While in the primary bedroom, Officer Spitzer and Special Agent Clutter located and temporarily took custody of a gun.[14] Meanwhile, Special Agent Clutter also observed two cellphones on a bed in the room.[15] After completing the “safety sweep” and determining that nobody was in the room and nothing else in the room threatened the officers' safety, two of the officers and Mejia-Velazquez exited and walked downstairs.[16] Special Agent Clutter did not; he lingered behind and dialed the number of the target cellphone for which the officers had obtained a warrant.[17] He then “noticed that [one of] the phone[s] was receiving a call.”[18]Special Agent Clutter picked up the cellphone, proceeded downstairs, and finished sweeping the premises with other HIDTA officers.[19] While Special Agent Clutter finished the “safety sweep,” Mejia-Velazquez and Officer Spitzer sat in the kitchen.[20] Mejia-Velazquez asked if she could call her wife or her attorney.[21] Officer Spitzer asked why she would need to call her attorney,[22] and he instructed her not to make any calls.[23] She acquiesced. He then asked if there was anything illegal in the house, and she replied, “Not that I know of.”[24] She further indicated that she and her wife used marijuana and that her wife used cocaine, but that there was no marijuana in the house, and she did not know whether there was any cocaine.[25]
Special Agent Clutter then returned to the kitchen with the target cellphone in hand, and “confronted” Mejia-Velazquez with it.[26] Specifically, Special Agent Clutter asked Mejia-Velazquez if she knew to whom it belonged.[27] He said that he believed the cellphone belonged to Mejia-Velazquez and knew it was involved in drug trafficking transactions.[28] He then stepped out of the kitchen, and Officer Spitzer noticed that Mejia-Velazquez was “manipulating something on her phone or doing something on her phone.”[29] Officer Spitzer instructed Mejia-Velazquez to “hang it up, and . . . make any calls after” the officers left.[30] Special Agent Clutter returned to the kitchen and suggested that Mejia-Velazquez “knew a lot” about the suspected drug activity the officers were investigating.[31] At that point, Mejia-Velazquez's demeanor noticeably shifted. She asked to move the conversation into the adjacent dining room, presumably for more privacy.[32] The officers agreed. Once in the dining room, the officers continued to question Mejia-Velazquez, and she answered their questions, supplied information about the suspected drug trafficking activity (including information from the seized target cellphone), and stated that she wanted to work as a “source.”[33]
After as many as 20 minutes of questioning, Officer Spitzer asked Mejia-Velazquez if she would consent to a search of her home.[34] Mejia-Velazquez inquired whether the officers had a warrant, and when Officer Spitzer indicated that they did not, she said that she would “prefer” that the officers did not conduct a search.[35] Special Agent Clutter then asked Mejia-Velazquez to accompany him back up to the bedroom to retrieve her identification, and she complied.[36] Once there, Special Agent Clutter asked whether there was anything “illegal” in the room.[37] Mejia-Velazquez retrieved a black duffel bag filled with cash and two bags containing significant quantities of methamphetamine and heroin.[38]
Sometime after that, the officers began discussing whether Mejia-Velazquez should be arrested, and Special Agent Clutter suggested to his colleagues that she should be used as a source, not arrested.[39] He then turned to Mejia-Velazquez and asked her whether there were any additional drugs; she admitted that there was a bag of drugs in the trunk of a car in the garage.[40] She retrieved the bag, which contained heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine.[41] She then agreed to a search of the home and executed a DEA consent form, acknowledging she had “not been threatened or forced in any way” and “consent[ed] to this search.”[42] Officers executed the search and found a potential drug ledger and scales.[43] Mejia-Velazquez was subsequently arrested and given a Miranda instruction.[44] She then made further incriminating statements.[45]
Mejia-Velazquez has filed four motions to suppress evidence and statements emanating from the February 23, 2021 “knock and talk,” as well as one motion to dismiss the case.[46] On November 11, 2021, Judge Anand held an evidentiary hearing regarding the pending motions to suppress and dismiss, and took each under advisement.[47] Based on the evidence elicited from Officer Spitzer and Special Agent Clutter during that hearing and the parties' post-November 1, 2021 hearing briefs, Judge Anand issued the R&R on June 8, 2022 recommending that the motions be denied.[48] On June 29, Mejia-Velazquez filed her Objections.[49]The Court held oral argument on December 14.[50]
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which Mejia-Velazquez objects and reviewed the remainder of the R&R for plain error. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983). While she lodges several objections to the R&R, they fall into five broad categories: (1) the scope of the “knock & talk”; (2) the “safety sweep”; (3) the seizure of the target cellphone and whether the cellphone was in “plain view”; (4) the lawfulness of Mejia-Velazquez's detention; and (5) whether her statements and other evidence should be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The Objections are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART as follows.
Mejia-Velazquez objects to the R&R's finding that (1) the three officers engaged in a permissible “knock and talk,” (2) the “knock and talk” was not a ruse to gain entry to the home to search it, and (3) the presence of additional officers within the curtilage of the home did not exceed the scope of a “knock and talk.”[51]She further contends that any evidence obtained in conjunction with the “knock and talk” is the fruit of an unlawful search and must be suppressed. These objections are OVERRULED.
It is “presumptively unreasonable” to search a home or its curtilage without a warrant. Brigham City v Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). However, the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures of these spaces, is “not implicated by entry upon private land to knock on a citizen's door for legitimate purposes unconnected with the search of the premises.” United States v. Taylor, 458 F.3d 1201, 1204 (11th Cir. 2006) (). This is known as the “knock and talk” exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, and it allows law...
To continue reading
Request your trial