United States v. Murray

• Decision Date: 02 August 2010
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 1:10–cr–00024.
• Citation: 53 V.I. 831
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jose A. MURRAY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands

53 V.I. 831

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Jose A. MURRAY, Defendant.

Crim. No. 1:10–cr–00024.

District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix.

Aug. 2, 2010.

Patricia Schrader–Cooke, Federal Public Defender, St. Croix, VI, for Defendant.

Rhonda Williams–Henry, United States Attorney Office, Christiansted, VI, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

FINCH, Senior District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Jose Murray's Motion to Suppress. While searching for a shooting suspect in the bush behind the John F. Kennedy Terrace housing community, members of the Virgin Islands Police Department observed an individual who matched the description of the shooting suspect standing outside of a makeshift wooden structure. Police approached that man, Defendant Jose Murray, and questioned him. After learning that he was armed, police arrested him. They subsequently discovered a gun, bullets, a vial of crack, and cash on the person of the Defendant. Police also found marijuana plants outside the wooden structure and a substantial sum of cash stuffed in a pillowcase inside the structure. Defendant now seeks to suppress that evidence and statements that he allegedly made to police on the basis that police were unlawfully on his property when they first observed him and that all evidence found after that was a result of warrantless search in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Government contends that Defendant lacks standing to contest the alleged search because he was “squatting” on private property and therefore has no reasonable expectation of privacy. In the alternative, the Government argues that the encounter between police and Defendant was consensual and therefore not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Police also argue that when they first saw Defendant, they had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain him to determine whether he was armed.

I. Facts

At approximately 10:30 A.M. on March 31, 2010, the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) was alerted to reports of shots being fired in the vicinity of buildings 20 and 21 of the Harbor View Apartments and that suspects had fled the area heading into the Orange Grove and John F. Kennedy Terrace (“JFK”) areas. (Suppression Hr'g Tr. 5–7, July 15, 2010.) Numerous concerned citizens called 911 and reported that they had seen several individuals involved in the shooting, including a black male who “might have braids or locks,” wearing a white t-shirt and dark pants and running away on foot. ( See Virgin Islands Emergency Call Center Call History Record, Incident # STX10CAD007662 at 3, Def .'s Ex. I.)

Officer Orlando Benitez, a member of the VIPD Bike unit, was dispatched to search the Harbor View Apartments on an all terrain vehicle (ATV).¹ (Hr'g Tr. 5:10–6:22.) After learning from central dispatch that the suspect had fled on foot to the Golden Rock and JFK Area, Officer Benitez headed to the JFK area. ( Id. at 6:23–7:12.) While searching near building 20 of the JFK Terrace, Officer Benitez observed a light complexioned black male wearing a white t-shirt and jeans.² The individual saw Officer Benitez and fled on foot into the “bush” toward the western side of JFK Terrace. Officer Benitez then radioed the description of the suspect and the area in which he observed him to central VIPD dispatch. ( Id. at 7:13–8:12.) He attempted to follow the suspect on his ATV but was blocked by a concrete barrier. While navigating around the barrier, Officer Benitez lost sight of the suspect “in the bush .” ( Id. at 8:13–8:20.)

VIPD Officers Robin Richards and Rolando Huertas, who had also been dispatched to search for the suspects, heard Officer Benitez's report and headed to the JFK Terrace from the Golden Rock area. ( Id. at 14:13–15:16.) When they arrived at JFK, they entered through the entrance across from Golden Rock, which was in the vicinity of building 7, and immediately proceeded into the bush. ( Id. at 15:9–16:1; 18:5–17.) While in the bush area behind building 7, Officers Richards and Huertas observed a wooden “makeshift” shack. ³ ( Id. at 19:24–20:2.) Outside the shack was a light complexioned black male with long dread locks, wearing a white t-shirt and grey pants. ⁴ ( Id. at 20:3–14.) Officers Richards and Huertas approached the Defendant and asked him if he had anything on him that “we need to know about.” ⁵ ( Id. at 20:15–19.) Defendant responded that he had “a steel” on him. Officer Richards then asked what he meant by “steel” and Defendant replied “a gun.” ( Id. at 20:20–25.)

Upon hearing Defendant state that he possessed a firearm, Officer Richards and Huertas placed Defendant under arrest and read him his Miranda rights. ( Id. at 21:1–5.) After mirandizing him, they asked Defendant if he had anything else on him to which Defendant replied that he had “dope” and bullets. ( Id. at 21:13–20.) One of the officers searched Defendant and, in his pockets, found a vial of crack, bullets wrapped in clear plastic, and $177 in U.S. currency. They also found a gun in a holster tucked into Defendant's waistband. ( Id. at 21:22–22:22.) Officers Richards and Huertas asked if he had any other drugs and Defendant stated that he had some marijuana plants. They then found twelve marijuana plants growing in a plastic container in the vicinity of the wooden shack. ( Id. at 23:5–19.) Defendant stated to the police that he was living in the wooden structure and was growing marijuana “for his business.” ( Id. at 24:5–25:5.) While Officers Richards and Huertas were escorting Defendant away from the wooden structure, Defendant stated that he had money stored in a white sock inside a pillowcase in the structure. At the behest of Defendant, one of the officers entered the wooden structure and found approximately $1,000 in the location that Defendant had described. ( Id. at 25:6–24.)

Defendant testified at the July 15, 2010 hearing and stated that he resided in the wooden structure and had done so for three to six months. (Hr'g Tr. 33:2–14.) Defendant described the wooden structure as being built “with pallets ... a little two-by-four roof, some little carpet over the top, and a wooden door with a gate before you enter, chained, to cover up the door [and] one window.” ( Id. at 33:4–10.) Defendant had a key to the lock used to chain up the door. ( Id. at 35:3–4.) Defendant testified that he did not know who owned the property ( id. at 46:3–4), but was living there with the permission of another individual, a Rastafarian male named “Aliko,” who lived in the wooden structure for “probably like four years, three years.” ( Id. at 51:9–20.) While corroborating some of Officer Richards' testimony, Defendant denied telling police that they could enter his house for the purpose of retrieving the money found in his pillowcase. ( Id. at 39:5–7.)

A second hearing was held on July 29, 2010.⁶ At that hearing, Nancy Chen testified that she has owned Plots No. 2 and 3, Estate Golden Rock for the last eight years. She described these plots as being the land between the road and extending all the way to JFK Terrace including the bush area behind building 7 of the JFK Terrace. Ms. Chen testified that she has never given permission to anyone to occupy the property or construct any wooden structures. She testified that she had made an attempt to “clean up” the property to make it attractive to potential purchasers but that she had been told by the Department of Public Works that she needed to first obtain a permit. She stated that she had been by the property but had never observed the wooden structure.

II. Discussion

Defendant argues that police were unlawfully on his property when they observed him standing outside his door and that everything found as a result of that observation must be suppressed. The Government responds that because Defendant was a squatter, he had no lawful right to be on the property and he therefore lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy.⁷ The Government also argues that the encounter between police and Defendant was consensual and that even if it was not, police had sufficient reasonable suspicion to approach Defendant and question him. They argue that the evidence obtained after Defendant's arrest was the result of a lawful search and that Defendant's post- Miranda statements were voluntary.

a. Standing Under the Fourth Amendment

For over a century, the Supreme Court has held that “remedies for violations of constitutional rights [are] only [ ] afforded to a person who belongs to the class for whose sake the constitutional protection is given.” ' United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 86 (1980) (quoting Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152, 160 (1907)). “[I]t is entirely proper to require of one who seeks to challenge the legality of a search as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence that he ... establish, that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy.” Id. (citation omitted). In other words, “[t]o invoke the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, a defendant must demonstrate that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure.” United States v. Stearn, 597 F.3d 540, 551 (3d Cir.2010) (citing Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 132–133 (1978)); see also United States v. Baker, 221 F.3d 438, 441 (3d Cir.2000) (quoting Rakas, 439 U.S. at 133–134) (“Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights, which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.”)

“The proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure.” ⁸Rakas, 439 U.S. at 132, n. 1;United States v. Acosta, 965 F.2d 1248, 1256, n. 9 (3d Cir.1992) (same); Stearn, 597 F.3d at 551 (“[T]he proponent of a motion to suppress bears the burden of proving not only that the search ... was illegal, but also that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in [the...