United States v. Qualls

• Docket Number: 23-CR-2021-CJW-MAR
• Decision Date: 29 August 2023
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN TRINIDAD QUALLS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN TRINIDAD QUALLS, Defendant.

No. 23-CR-2021-CJW-MAR

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

August 29, 2023

ORDER

C. J Williams, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on defendant's Motion to Suppress. (Doc. 28). The government filed a timely resistance and a supplement to that resistance. (Docs. 30; 40). The Court referred defendant's motion to the Honorable Mark A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). On July 21, 2023, Judge Roberts held a hearing on the motion to suppress. (Doc. 41). Then, on August 7, 2023, Judge Roberts recommended the Court deny-in-part and deny as moot-in-part defendant's motion to suppress. (Doc. 44). Defendant objected to Judge Roberts' R&R. (Doc. 50). For the following reasons, the Court overrules defendant's objections, adopts Judge Roberts' R&R, and denies-in-part and denies-in-part as moot defendant's Motion to Suppress.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court reviews Judge Roberts' R&R under the statutory standards found in Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1):

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

See also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) (stating identical requirements). While examining these statutory standards, the United States Supreme Court explained:

Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). Thus, a district court may review de novo any issue in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation at any time. Id. If a party files an objection to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must review the objected portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of an objection, the district court is not required “to give any more consideration to the magistrate [judge]'s report than the court considers appropriate.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

After reviewing the hearing transcript (Doc. 49), the Court finds Judge Roberts accurately and thoroughly set forth the relevant facts in the R&R. The Court adopts Judge Roberts' summary of the facts here.

At 2:54 a.m. on December 31, 2022, Floyd County Sheriff's Office Deputy Dylan Isakson pulled Defendant over for speeding. (Government Ex. 1, Isakson Dash-Camera Footage, at:30-36.) Deputy Isakson was positioned in the median near Rudd Park Road and Highway 18. His patrol car lights were off, and he was operating his radar detector from a stationary position. Defendant's vehicle approached Deputy Isakson's patrol car from the rear, traveling westbound. Deputy Isakson activated his radar unit and obtained a reading of Defendant's vehicle traveling 88 miles per hour in a 65 mile-per-hour zone. (Id.; Isakson Hr'g Test. at 10.) Deputy Isakson turned on the lights of his patrol car, entered the roadway, caught up to Defendant, and initiated a traffic stop. (Isakson Hr'g Test. at 11.) Defendant's vehicle pulled over to the side of the road.

Deputy Isakson approached the vehicle from the passenger side and noted that Defendant was alone in the vehicle. (Id.) Deputy Isakson asked Defendant where he was traveling from, and Defendant replied that he was traveling from visiting his mother in Michigan. (Government Ex. 1 at 1:50.) When asked where he was driving to, Defendant replied that he was going to visit his sister in Clear Lake, Iowa. (Id.) Defendant was fully compliant and provided Deputy Isakson his Arizona driver's license and a pouch containing his vehicle registration and proof of insurance. (Id. at 2:15-2:50.) Deputy Isakson testified that Defendant's overly friendly manner and overly compliant behavior, combined with his apparent nervousness, raised suspicion. (Isakson Hr'g Test. At 14, 25-26.)

Deputy Isakson returned to his patrol vehicle to run Defendant's information and observed marijuana residue, or “shake,” when handling the pouch that contained Defendant's vehicle registration. (Defendant Ex. A at 2:15-5:11.) At the hearing, Deputy Isakson explained that once he was in his patrol car, he could smell the odor of marijuana emanating from the paperwork and observed marijuana residue or green leafy residue inside the pouch containing the vehicle registration. (Isakson Hr'g Test. at 13.) Deputy Isakson then returned to Defendant's vehicle to explain that he had probable cause to search the vehicle. (Defendant Ex. A at 5:50-6:15.) Deputy Isakson also asked Defendant a series of questions pertaining to marijuana. (Id. at 5:30.) Defendant stated there was not any marijuana in the vehicle. (Id. at 5:37.) Defendant was asked if marijuana was legal in Arizona, his state of residence, to which he replied “yes.” (Id. at 5:43.) Defendant stated that he was not under the influence while driving but admitted that he had legally smoked a “joint” of marijuana earlier that day while he was in Michigan. (Id. at 6:20-6:50.) At the hearing, Deputy Isakson also stated that when he re-approached Defendant's vehicle, he observed more marijuana residue near the shifter of the center console^[1] in Defendant's car. (Isakson Hr'g Test. 14.)

Deputy Isakson instructed Defendant to exit the vehicle and he performed a patdown of Defendant's person to detect any weapons and ensure his safety. (Id. at 7:00-7:10.) Deputy Isakson found a large quantity of cash in Defendant's pocket. (Id. at 8:30-8:50.) When asked how much cash was in his pocket, Defendant replied “probably 600 bucks.” (Id.) Deputy Isakson placed Defendant in the front seat of his patrol car. (Isakson Hr'g Test. at 15.) At this time, Defendant was not handcuffed. (Id.) At this point Defendant had access to his cell phone and may have used it while the search proceeded.

Deputy Isakson then began searching Defendant's vehicle while Defendant sat uncuffed in the patrol vehicle. Defendant appeared nervous and called Deputy Isakson back to the patrol vehicle several times. Deputy Isakson testified that he believed Defendant was attempting to divert his attention from the search and make the search go more quickly. (Id. at 16.) The search produced a vape pen in the driver's side door. Deputy Isakson could smell the odor of burnt THC on the vape pen. Deputy Isakson also found a large bag of methamphetamine under the front passenger seat. (Id. at 17.) After finding the first bag of methamphetamine, Deputy Isakson returned to the patrol car and had Defendant place his phone on the car's dash, as Defendant had been speaking to his mother, and then placed Defendant in handcuffs in front of his body. (Id. at 17-18.) Deputy Isakson returned to Defendant's vehicle to complete the search and found a second bag of methamphetamine on the front passenger's seat. (Id. at 18.)

(Doc. 44, at 2-5).

IV. ANALYSIS

In the Motion to Suppress, defendant argues the Court should suppress defendant's statements to officers, the contents of defendant's phone, controlled substances found in his vehicle, and any evidence obtained as a result of the search and interrogations because there was no probable cause to search the vehicle, the resulting statements and evidence are fruit of the poisonous tree, and defendant did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. (Doc. 29).

In his R&R, Judge Roberts recommended the Court deny-in-part and deny-in-part as moot defendant's motion. (Doc. 44). Judge Roberts found the evidence supported that Deputy Isakson had probable cause to support the stop because defendant was driving in excess of the posted speed limit. (Doc. 44, at 8-9). Judge Roberts also found the evidence supported that Deputy Isakson had probable cause to search the vehicle under federal law-regardless of states' marijuana laws-because he smelled marijuana and observed marijuana residue in defendant's vehicle registration pouch and observed marijuana residue on the vehicle's center console upon approaching it a second time. (Id., at 9-13). Judge Roberts found this Court should deny the motion to suppress defendant's statements after he was handcuffed as moot, as the government will not present those statements in its case-in-chief. (Id., at 13-14). As to the contents of defendant's phone, Judge Roberts found the evidence supported the assertion the search warrant was based only on the search of the car and none of defendant's statements after he was handcuffed, and thus, the Court should deny the motion as to those phone contents. (Id., at 14-16). Should the phone contain contents created after defendant's arrest and the phone's seizure, however, Judge Roberts recommended this Court deem it inadmissible. (Id., at 16). Last, Judge Roberts recommended the Court find defendant's suppressed statements admissible for impeachment purposes at trial if defendant should testify. (Id., at 16-17).

Defendant objects to Judge Roberts' findings in the R&R: (1) that Deputy Isakson observed marijuana residue on the center console near the gear shifter of defendant's vehicle; (2) that Deputy Isakson had probable cause to search defendant's vehicle; (3) the factual finding that wind may have factored into Deputy Isakson's ability to smell...