United States v. Pendergrass
| Docket Number | 3:21-CR-27-TAV-JEM |
| Decision Date | 01 August 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JEREMY LEE PENDERGRASS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case is before the undersigned for report and recommendation on Defendant Jeremy Lee Pendergrass's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 34]. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Defendant is charged by Indictment with two counts of being a convicted felon in possession of firearms on June 9, 2020 (Count One) and on December 4, 2019 (Count Two), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) [Doc. 3]. He is also charged with possession of five grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) (Count Three) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count Four), both counts allegedly occurring on December 4, 2019 [Id.]. These charges arise out of the search of a vehicle on December 4 2019, and the search of a vehicle on June 9, 2020. Defendant contends that both seizures of his person and both vehicle searches violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and moves the Court to suppress all evidence gained from the warrantless searches of these vehicles.
On December 4, 2019, around 10:00 p.m., two officers stopped their patrol vehicles on the street in front of the gravel parking area where Defendant sat in the driver's seat of a parked car. One officer began questioning an individual walking down the street, and when the second officer walked up to engage the individual, the first officer walked to Defendant's vehicle with a flashlight, which he shined inside the vehicle. Defendant rolled down his window, and both officers claimed they smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from Defendant's vehicle. A search of Defendant's vehicle resulted in the seizure of illegal drugs and a firearm from the glove compartment. Defendant contends that the officers seized him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause when they parked in front of the gravel parking area because a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave.
On June 9, 2020, around 6:30 p.m., officers observed a silver Hyundai, driven by Defendant, pause near officers, swerve toward a patrol car, exceed the speed limit, and drive erratically. An officer followed Defendant into a subdivision and observed him park in the driveway of a residence, walk up to the door, and talk with an elderly woman who answered the door. As the officer surveilled Defendant from his patrol car parked on the street several houses away, a neighbor approached the officer to ask what was happening. The officer asked if the neighbor recognized Defendant's car. The neighbor told the officer he had never seen Defendant or Defendant's car at that residence. The officer drove to the residence, parked on the street, and seized Defendant in the driveway as Defendant was returning to his vehicle. Through the open driver's side door, the officer saw a small, clear baggie on the driver's seat and he believed it to have methamphetamine residue. The officer detained Defendant in handcuffs, and Defendant informed the officer he did not have a driver's license. Law enforcement subsequently searched Defendant's vehicle and seized a firearm, ammunition, and drug packaging materials. Methamphetamine was seized from Defendant's person. Defendant argues that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and did not have his consent or the consent of the vehicle's owner to search the car. He also contends that no contraband was in plain view.
After reviewing the evidence, the arguments of the parties, and the relevant law, the undersigned finds that the officer's initial approach on December 4, 2019, was a consensual encounter, and the officer immediately developed reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant and probable cause to search the vehicle upon smelling the odor of marijuana when Defendant rolled down the car's window. With regard to the June 9, 2020 incident, the undersigned finds the officer had probable cause to perform a traffic stop and, thus, could properly detain Defendant in the driveway of the residence. Upon learning Defendant did not have a driver's license the officer had probable cause to arrest Defendant and to search his person incident to arrest. The undersigned finds Defendant lacks standing to challenge the search of his girlfriend's vehicle. Alternatively, if Defendant has standing to challenge the June 9, 2020 vehicle search, the exclusionary rule does not apply because the officer acted with the good faith belief that he had a valid basis to search. The undersigned therefore recommends that Defendant's motion to suppress be denied.
The parties appeared before the undersigned for a series of evidentiary hearings on the suppression motion on June 3, 15, 17, and 23, 2022. Assistant United States Attorney LaToyia T. Carpenter appeared on behalf of the Government at these hearings. Attorney Christopher J. Oldham represented Defendant Pendergrass, who was present for all four hearings.
At the June 3 evidentiary hearing,[1]the Government presented the testimony of Harriman Police Department (“HPD”) Officer Tony Gregory, who testified that he has worked for the HPD since January 2018, as a K-9 officer and a patrol officer [Doc. 77 pp. 6-7]. He graduated from the Knox County police academy in mid-2018 and has also completed drug interdiction classes, K-9 handler school, an advanced search and seizure class, and annual in-service training [Id. at 7-8].
Around 10:00 p.m., on December 4, 2019, Officer Gregory was on patrol in a black Chevrolet Tahoe in north Harriman in the vicinity of Siluria and Georgia Streets [Id. at 9, 11]. This area is a blend of commercial and residential properties [Id. at 9]. Officer Gregory characterized this area as having a medium-to-high crime rate and stated that officers have responded to drug overdoses, fights, domestic violence, and burglaries in this area [Id. at 9-10]. He testified that while traveling westbound on Georgia Street, he observed a male dressed in dark clothing walking southbound in the alley behind Siluria Street [Id. at 10-11]. He said that as he passed the man, whom he did not recognize, the man looked back at him several times and increased his speed, as if trying to get away [Id. at 10]. Officer Gregory thought this behavior was odd, so he decided to talk with the man to confirm the man was not trying to break into a building or running away from a crime scene [Id. at 10, 13]. Officer Gregory said he later identified the man as Tony Withrow [Id. at 11].
Officer Gregory testified that he called his partner Officer Richard Wood, who was nearby, and told Officer Wood that he was going to speak with the man [Id. at 11-12]. Officer Gregory drove into the alley and parked on the right side of the road, at an “angle” so that his headlights would illuminate the man [Id. at 12]. He got out of his patrol vehicle and spoke with Mr. Withrow [Id. at 11-12]. When Officer Wood arrived, Officer Gregory noticed the headlights on a parked vehicle turn off, and he approached the parked vehicle, leaving Officer Wood with Mr. Withrow [Id. at 12]. Officer Gregory stated that his patrol vehicle was ten to fifteen feet from the parked car, and Officer Wood's vehicle was twenty to twenty-five feet from the car [Id. at 13]. He estimated that his and Officer Wood's vehicles were more than a car-length apart [Id.]. Officer Gregory said the two patrol vehicles were far enough apart that a vehicle could drive between them [Id. at 14].
Officer Gregory stated that when he saw the headlights on the parked car turn off, he thought the occupant would get out of the car and go to an apartment [Id. at 14]. He wanted to ask the occupant if he recognized the man with whom they were talking as someone who frequented the area [Id.]. Officer Gregory walked up to the parked car, tapped on the window, and asked the occupant to roll down the window [Id.]. He said, immediately after the window was down, he detected the odor of marijuana coming from inside the parked car [Id.]. Officer Gregory said he later determined the occupant of the parked car was Defendant Jeremy Pendergrass [Id. at 15].
Officer Gregory testified that the parked vehicle was backed into the parking area and was facing the alley [Id. at 15]. He said he could not see the vehicle's occupant because it was dark in the alley and the car's windows were tinted and “almost impossible to see through” [Id.]. Officer Gregory said while standing approximately one foot from the car with his flashlight illuminating it, he could see movement inside the car, which appeared to be the occupant getting something from the passenger seat [Id. at 15-16]. According to Officer Gregory, he knocked on the window one time, and the occupant rolled down the window seconds later [Id. at 16]. He stated that he asked the occupant to roll down his window once or twice [Id.]. Officer Gregory said once the window was down, the odor of marijuana was very strong [Id. at 17].
Officer Gregory said after smelling the marijuana, he asked Defendant to step out of the car [Id. at 19]. Defendant told him he was there waiting for a friend [Id.]. Officer Gregory said after smelling marijuana, he and Officer Wood focused their investigation on Defendant [Id.]. He said based upon Mr. Withrow's answers to questions from Officer Wood, they determined he was not doing anything illegal and was on his way home [Id. at 20]. Officer Gregory testified that when asked about the odor of marijuana coming from his car, Defendant said a friend...
To continue reading
Request your trial