United States v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 03 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-cr-2024-CJW |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SIR-FRANK WILLIAM NELSON, III, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED UNDER SEAL
I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 2
II. FINDINGS OF FACT ............................. 4
III. DISCUSSION ....................................19
1. Warning Information ........................20
2. Gang Affiliation ........................24
3. Area Known for Weapons Violations and Time of Night ........................24
4. Proximity to Weapons Violation at Flirts ........................ 29
5. Actions and Demeanor of Other Occupants of the Cadillac ........................ 29
6. Actions and Demeanor of Defendant ........................ 30
7. Evidence Related to Defendant's Criminal History ........................33
8. Open Bottle of Alcohol ........................36
9. Conclusion ........................36
1. Defendant's Arguments ........................ 37
2. Analysis ........................40
IV. CONCLUSION
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 14, 2021, the Grand Jury charged Defendant Sir-Frank William Nelson, III with one count of Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (Doc. 2.)
The matter before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress. (Doc. 30.) The Government timely filed a response. (Doc. 38.) Defendant timely filed a reply. (Doc. 48.) Both parties filed post-hearing briefs. (Docs. 58, 59.) The Honorable Charles J. Williams, United States District Court Judge, referred the motion to me for a Report and Recommendation. I held a hearing on Tuesday, March 29, 2022. (Doc. 53.)
This motion arises from a June 28, 2020 incident in which City of Waterloo police officers were investigating a possible motor vehicle collision. Defendant was a passenger in one of the vehicles involved. When officers requested Defendant exit the vehicle, he was immediately subjected to a pat-down and a firearm was found on his person. The issues presented are (1) whether law enforcement had reasonable suspicion Defendant was armed and dangerous to justify the warrantless search of Defendant's person; and (2) whether Defendant consented to the search.
At the hearing, the following Government exhibits were admitted without objection:
Defendant filed an Inventory of Items to be Suppressed. (Doc. 30-1.) Defendant's exhibits were admitted without objection:
The Government called three WPD officers as witnesses: Officer Amira Ehlers, Detective Jordan Ehlers, and Detective Keaton Northrup. Defendant called his sister, Miss-Sasha Nelson, to testify. I found all witnesses credible. For the following reasons, I respectfully recommend that the District Court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings were garnered from hearing testimony and the parties' exhibits. Officer Amira Ehlers[1] (“Officer A. Ehlers”) was on duty at approximately 1:40 a.m. in the area of Commercial Street and West Park Avenue in Waterloo, Iowa. This downtown area was dark, but illuminated to some extent by streetlights that supply “plenty of artificial lighting in the area.” (A. Ehlers Hr'g Test. at 19.)[2] Officer A. Ehlers and Officer Kristie Sommer were stopped near this area when they heard a large crash.[3] Officer A. Ehlers looked up and saw a white Cadillac[4] and a black sedan next to one another, “almost kind of like touching each other.” (Id. at 7.) Officers Sommer and A. Ehlers activated the lights on their patrol vehicle, parked near the site of the suspected collision, and exited the patrol car to approach the scene. The black sedan had been traveling east on Commercial Street and the Cadillac traveling west on Commercial Street. Because of the black sedan's turn signal, Officer A. Ehlers believed the black sedan was going to turn north. It appeared to Officer A. Ehlers that the vehicles had collided close to their front tires. With respect to the Cadillac, the point of the suspected collision was the front driver's side tire.
After parking the patrol car to block traffic, Officer Sommer approached the driver of the Cadillac. Officer A. Ehlers approached the driver of the black sedan.[5] The driver of the black sedan said that “everything was fine” and drove away. The driver of the black sedan drove away before Officer A. Ehlers had finished her conversation with its driver. In fact, the black sedan drove off before Officer A. Ehlers could perform basic investigative functions such as obtaining the driver's identification and insurance information. Officer A. Ehlers radioed other officers to check the area for the black sedan in case the driver of the Cadillac wanted to pursue charges or seek damages for the collision.[6] The driver of the Cadillac did not attempt to drive away from the scene. There was no violence, gunfire, or even cursing among the occupants of the two vehicles. Although the exchange was not recorded, Officer Ehlers testified that she heard Officer Sommer speaking with the driver of the Cadillac. The driver of the Cadillac reported that he had spoken with the driver of the black sedan, told him to pay attention to the lights, and that “everything was all good.” (Id. at 37-38.)
Officer A. Ehlers noticed the Cadillac appeared to evidence two violations of Iowa Code Chapter 321 regarding the operation of motor vehicles. Officer A. Ehlers noticed the Cadillac did not have a front license plate in violation of Iowa Code Section 321.37 and had excessive tinting of its windows in violation of Iowa Code Section 321.438. Officer A. Ehlers or Officer Sommer checked the Cadillac's vehicle registration number and determined it was not stolen. Officer A. Ehlers did not believe that Mr. Echols, the driver of the Cadillac, had disobeyed any traffic control device or suspect he was under the influence of alcohol. (Id. at 20-21.) It was determined, however, that Mr. Echols did not have a valid driver's license.
As Officers Sommer and A. Ehlers approached the Cadillac they smelled “a strong odor that was consistent with an alcoholic beverage.” (Id. at 9.) Officer A. Ehlers testified that they ultimately identified Rodonus Echols as the driver of the Cadillac, Defendant as the front-seat passenger, and Montavis Keller as the back-seat passenger. Officer A. Ehlers read these names to the police dispatcher (“dispatch”) to determine if the driver had a valid license and to determine if any of the occupants had active arrest warrants. Neither Officer recognized any of the occupants; however, Officer Sommer was aware of recent intelligence that Mr. Echols was known to carry weapons and she shared this information with Officer A. Ehlers. (Id. at 11.) Officer Sommer did not share information about the other occupants of the Cadillac with Officer A. Ehlers.
Mr. Echols, the driver of the Cadillac, told officers no collision had occurred and he did not want officers to pursue the other driver or take further action. Officer A. Ehlers found this response unusual because in other “hit-and-run” accidents the person at the scene wants law enforcement to look for the driver who caused the damage. (Id. at 11-12.)
During this interaction, Officer A. Ehlers noticed what she believed was an open container of alcohol in the vehicle in violation of Iowa Code Section 321.284. She saw a container of Patron (also identified as tequila) on the floorboard behind the driver's seat. She believed it was an open container of alcohol because of the smell of alcohol and because the bottle did not appear to be full. Officer A. Ehlers testified that when she encounters a possible open container violation, she typically removes all occupants from the vehicle to search it for other open containers. (Id. at 13.) At this point, Defendant was not free to leave the scene because of the suspected open container violation. Thus, Defendant was seized because of the open container and car accident investigation, but not because officers considered him armed and dangerous. (Id. at 31-32.) Officer A. Ehlers had no information that led her to believe Defendant was armed and dangerous. She had not observed any of the Cadillac's occupants try to hide their hands, fidget, or make suspicious movements. (Id. at 32, 34.)
At some point during the encounter with law enforcement, Detectives Jordan Ehlers[7] and Keaton Northup of the WPD's Violent Crimes Apprehension Team (“VCAT”)[8] were nearby, heard about the encounter on the radio, and drove to the scene. VCAT's assistance was not requested by Officer A. Ehlers. She noticed nothing violent about the car...
To continue reading
Request your trial