United States v. Morris
| Decision Date | 10 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-CR-30012-SPM-2 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DEMETRIUS C. MORRIS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements along with a supporting memorandum filed by Defendant Demetrius C. Morris (Docs. 84, 85). The United States (the “Government”) filed a response to the motion (Doc. 88). Morris then filed a reply (Doc. 91). The Government later supplemented its response with case law that addressed claims of Fourth Amendment standing when searching a stolen vehicle (Doc. 98).[1]
In February 2022, a grand jury returned a three-count indictment against Morris that charged him with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and illegal possession of a machine gun based on a search of a vehicle outside of a gas station (Doc. 25). The indictment also contained a forfeiture allegation that sought forfeiture of seized firearms.
Morris filed a motion to suppress all evidence and statements obtained pursuant to his encounter with police and the search of the vehicle (Doc. 84). Morris argued that the seizure of his person violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause (Doc. 85). As a result, Morris argued, the search of the vehicle was unlawful as fruit of the poisonous tree and incriminating statements made by Morris while under interrogation were also fruit of the poisonous tree. The Government argued that the officer was reasonable in his belief that criminal activity was afoot when he and the other officers engaged and quickly seized Morris. The Government additionally contended that the officer also had probable cause to arrest Morris on the belief that Morris had violated the law.
On March 23, 2023, the Court held an evidentiary hearing and Officer Aaron Morgan testified regarding his encounter with Morris that led to the search and his arrest (Doc. 104). The Court finds that Morgan was credible as to facts about which he had personal knowledge. This assessment is based on his demeanor while testifying, the foundations he had for testifying to certain facts, and the consistency of his material testimony with other evidence in the case.
Morgan has been in law enforcement for sixteen years and is employed as a police officer by the Village of Sauget Police Department going on two years. He is assigned to patrol the area of Sauget at night, surveilling the heavily trafficked area where a gas station is located for most, if not all, of his shift. Morgan stated that he considers the area a “high crime” area - according to Morgan ninety-eight percent of the police department's calls are for this area. Morgan recounted that the area has a lot of gunfire along with armed robbery, criminal trespass, fights vehicle break-ins, and several murders. He also testified that in his eight months as a police officer with Sauget prior to this encounter, he made sixty arrests for illegal firearms.
The gas station at the center of this area, Route 3 Liquor, also sells liquor and is open twenty-four hours a day. The doors to store are locked every night at 11:00 p.m., but the store remains open to customers via a service window. It is adjacent to two nightclubs and two gentlemen's clubs.
On January 20, 2022, Morgan went on shift. He drove his patrol car to a parking lot approximately eighty yards north of Route 3 Liquor and parked behind a telephone pole with his car facing towards the store. At approximately 2:00 a.m. on January 21, 2022, while sitting in his patrol car and looking through his 12x magnification binoculars towards the well-lit gas station, Morgan observed an Infiniti sport utility vehicle (“SUV”) with no front license plate back into a parking space next to the service window. Both the State of Illinois and the State of Missouri require front and rear license plates with few exceptions. Morgan stated that “cars that usually back in are trying to conceal either the rear plate or the fact that they don't have a rear plate on the vehicle.” He also noted from his experience that some of those vehicles are later identified as stolen.
From there, Morgan saw Morris exit the SUV from the driver's side and put something under his arm. As Morris faced the service window, Morgan could see some of the object under his arm - the barrel and tactical light of a firearm. Morgan stated that he had never seen a concealed carry licensee in the State of Illinois tuck a firearm in that way and the firearm presented a safety issue due to the inability of the holder to ensure that it was pointed in a safe direction.
As Morris stood at the window for service, Morgan testified that a male clerk motioned to Morris indicating he would not serve Morris with the firearm. Morris then walked towards the SUV and knocked on the rear passenger side window. The window rolled down and, in full view, Morris placed the firearm, described as a black handgun with a drum magazine, into the SUV. After seeing the firearm in full, Morgan radioed another officer to describe the individual and the firearm. At this point, Morgan stated that it was his intention to approach and detain Morris to ascertain if he had a Firearm Owners Identification (“FOID”) card and a concealed carry license.
After backup arrived and that officer positioned himself to support Morgan, Morgan drove across the parking lot, into the Route 3 parking lot, and parked in front of the SUV, blocking it in. As Morgan exited, Morris walked back to the SUV after going to the service window a second time. Morgan exited his patrol car and ordered Morris to stop. Morris ignored the order and hurried to the back of the SUV to get to the driver's side. Morris continued to ignore Morgan's order, and the orders of the additional officer on scene. The officer eventually tazed Morris and he was handcuffed. After exiting the SUV, the passenger was also handcuffed. Approximately six minutes into the encounter, Morgan had determined that Morris did not have a FOID card or a concealed carry license through his patrol car computer.
Morgan searched the SUV. A Glock 9-millimeter handgun with a drum magazine and tactical light was retrieved from the driver's side of the SUV approximately six minutes in as well. The firearm was modified with a “Glock switch” that allowed fully automatic fire. Morgan also found a Taurus G3 9-millimeter handgun and narcotics, including fentanyl. Further inspection of the exterior of the SUV revealed an expired temporary rear plate for a 2020 Toyota vehicle. The proper plate for the SUV was inside the SUV. Dispatch confirmed the SUV was stolen out of St. Louis County in Missouri.
After the hearing, both parties filed supplemental briefs for the Court to consider (Docs. 105, 106).
A motion to suppress seeks to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment provides “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ....” U.S. Const. amend. IV. This negative right requires that searches and seizures be founded on objective justification. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 551 (1980).
A law enforcement officer may seize a suspect for a brief detention “which give the officers a chance to verify (or dispel) well-founded suspicions that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Vega, 72 F.3d 507, 515 (7th Cir. 1995). Reasonable suspicion is more than a “hunch” but less than probable cause and must be supported by specific and articulable facts. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000). A court must examine the totality of the circumstances in order to determine whether a search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981); see also Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848 (2006). The evaluation of the circumstances is “based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.” Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125.
During an investigatory stop, probable cause may be required when restraint becomes intrusive to a point where it is tantamount to an arrest, also known as a de facto arrest. See United States v. Bullock, 632 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 2011). “Probable cause denotes more than a mere suspicion, but does not require certainty.” United States v. Fleischli, 305 F.3d 643, 651 (7th Cir. 2002). Probable cause exists if the “facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge . . . are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, [to] believ[e], in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.” U.S. v. Paige, 870 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37 (1979)).
In each case, the Government bears the burden of proof. See U.S. v. Longmire, 761 F.2d 411, 417 (7th Cir. 1985).
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial