United States v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 26 December 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:18-cr-00097-MMD-WGC
• Citation: 430 F.Supp.3d 693
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Zuryess ROBERTS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

430 F.Supp.3d 693

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Zuryess ROBERTS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cr-00097-MMD-WGC

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Signed December 26, 2019

Megan Rachow, AUSA, Elizabeth Olson White, Peter Walkingshaw, U.S. Attorney's Office, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff.

Lauren D. Gorman, Christopher P. Frey, AFPD, Federal Public Defender, Reno, NV, Loren Graham, Lake Tahoe, NV, for Defendants.

ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. SUMMARY

Defendant Zuryess Roberts, who was 18 years old at the time he was arrested and interrogated by police officers, has brought three separate motions to suppress in this action. (ECF Nos. 34, 35, 38.) The first motion seeks to suppress contents recovered from his cellphone upon the execution of a warrant. (ECF No. 34.) The second motion seeks suppression of statements Defendant made in responding to questioning by the officers. (ECF No. 35.) The third motion asks the Court to suppress items that were seized upon a search of Defendant and the car he was driving. (ECF No. 38.)¹ For the reasons below, the Court will grant the first motion in full. The Court will grant the other two motions in part and denied them in part.

II. FACTUAL FINDINGS

The underlying facts are not in dispute and derive from the parties' exhibits and testimony at the Hearing. (See ECF No. 55.)

On January 17, 2019, Defendant was charged by superseding indictment with four counts: conspiracy to steal, take or carry away firearms from the premises of a federal firearms licensee under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u) and 371 (Count One); theft of firearms from the same such premises under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u) and 924(i)(1) (Count Two); possession of stolen firearms under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2) (Count Three); and transportation of stolen firearms under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(i) and 924(a)(2) (Count Four). (ECF No. 20.)

A. Search of Defendant and Car He Was Driving

The charges stem from Defendant's arrest on September 30, 2018, and related events. On that day, a few minutes after 7:30 p.m., Officers Michael Jones and Wesley Pittman of the Vallejo Police Department ("Vallejo PD") (collectively, "Officers") responded to reports of shots heard in the area. (ECF No. 38-10.) Several minutes past 8:00 p.m., the Officers were driving their marked police car in the area of Concoran Avenue and Mini Drive when they noticed the car Defendant was driving. (Id. at 2; ECF No. 38-1 at 2 (police narrative).) The car was a dark colored Toyota Camry which approached the Officers going northbound as they traveled southbound. (Id. ) The Officers noticed that the car's lights were "not fully turned on." (Id. ) Jones ran a records check on the car, which revealed the car's registration had expired the year before. (Id. ) The Officers watched as Defendant parked the car against the curb in a residential neighborhood. (Id. )

The Officers decided to stop Defendant based on a suspected violation of California Vehicle Code ("CVC") §§ 24250 and 4000(a). (Id. ) The former requires that a vehicle be equipped with lighting equipment when driving during darkness. Cal. Vehicle Code § 24250. The latter requires that a vehicle be registered to be driven. Id. § 4000(a)(1). The Officers got out of their car and approached Defendant. (ECF No. 38-2 at 00:00–00:34.) According to the Officers' testimony at the Hearing, they had been calling after Defendant, but this was not captured on their body cameras. Defendant was not in the immediate vicinity of his car at this point. (Id. ) Defendant was walking towards an apartment building when the Officers caught up with him. (Id. )

Officer Jones beamed his flashlight on Defendant and directed him to "come here." (Id. at 00:30–00:36.) As he approached Defendant, Jones told Defendant that the car he had been driving had registration that was over a year expired. (Id. ) Defendant stopped walking and turned to face Jones, with his hands up and palms facing Jones. (Id. ) Defendant transferred his keys from his left hand to his right hand. (Id. ) Defendant slowly lowered his now empty left hand towards his waist, keeping his right hand raised. (Id. ) Jones grabbed Defendant's left arm while telling him to, "keep your hands up." (Id. at 00:37.) While forcing Defendant's hands above his head, Jones repeatedly told him to, "relax man." (Id. at 00:37–00:41.) Defendant complied as Jones held his hands above his head and commanded Defendant to widen his stance. (Id. at 00:42–00:45.) Jones asked Defendant if he had identification on him and Defendant responded, "No sir." (Id. at 00:45–00:47). Jones indicated that he was detaining Defendant, "real quick" for driving without a license. (Id. 00:53–00:55.) Approximately 25 seconds elapsed from the time Jones directed Defendant's attention to the time he "detained" Defendant.

Jones handcuffed Defendant, with Defendant questioning Jones' conduct and again asserting that he did not have identification on him. (Id. at 00:55–1:25.) Upon handcuffing Defendant, the Officers unzipped and searched his pockets. (Id. at 01:15—01:23.) From searching Defendant, the Officers took Defendant's keys, an Apple iPhone S ("Phone"), and a substantial sum of cash. (ECF No. 38-9 at 6.)

Thereafter, Jones sat Defendant in the back of the patrol car (ECF No. 38-2 at 01:38–01:40), while Pittman looked through the windows of the car Defendant had been driving, using his flashlight (ECF No. 38-4 at 0:00–00:30). Based on testimony at the Hearing, it became clear that Pittman then went back to the patrol car and asked Defendant a series of questions largely irrelevant to the traffic infractions. (Id. at 00:55–02:47.) Jones can also be heard simultaneously asking Defendant questions. (Id. ) Pittman's questions included whether Defendant had ever been arrested, whether he was on probation or parole, whether he worked, how much he got paid, and asking multiple times whether there was anything illegal in the car. (Id. ) As to the latter, Defendant responded, "No." (Id. ). This questioning was not preceded by either Officer reading Defendant his Miranda² rights. Shortly after, one officer stated on radio that Defendant was arrested "for pursuit and 148."³ (Id. at 03:01–03:11.)

The Officers decided to search the car. In searching, Pittman began under the front driver seat. (ECF No. 38-7 at 00:00–00:35.) Pittman looked around the interior of the car before digging through a black backpack, tossing out items and looking at paperwork. (Id. at 00:35–01:30.) He made no notation of the items inside nor otherwise indicating that he was conducting an inventory search. (Id. ) Pittman then moved to the backseat where he also moved items around, shining his flashlight on clothes and shoes. (Id. at 02:00–02:09.) He went to the trunk and opened a black bag, finding several firearms inside. (Id. at 02:09–02:25.) Pittman called Jones over, commenting, "Good thing we're going to inventory this thing." (Id. at 02:30–02:38.)

One body camera video also showed Jones searching in the trunk of the car. (ECF No. 38-6 at 00:30–00:48.) At the Hearing, the government pointed out that this video shows Jones picking up a sheet (claimed for inventory) after Pittman's search—i.e., after the discovery of the firearms. (Id. ) In the video, Jones removed spare tires from the car's trunk. (Id. at 00:48–01:01.) He also lifted and inspected the area under the trunk lining before replacing the spare tires and closing the trunk. (Id. at 01:00–01:15.) Jones then pushed the car's rear passenger window down and examined a bag therein by lifting it up. (Id. at 01:15–01:24.) Jones did not look inside the bag. (Id. ) He then checked behind and under the car's rear passenger seat and tossed some items around in the car, before moving to the front passenger seat. (Id. at 01:24–02:10.) Jones made no notations of the items inside the car during this search, which concluded with him picking up a piece of paper that was inside the car and then turning off his body camera. (Id. at 02:10–02:58.)

Ultimately, the Officers seized the firearms, clothes, shoes, a backpack, and the cash found in Defendant's pocket and a wallet containing a substantial amount of additional cash and applied to forfeit those assets. (ECF No. 38-1 at 2–3; ECF No. 48-4 at 2.) Subsequent investigation into the firearms revealed that they had been stolen from gun stores in Sparks and Reno, Nevada ("Stores"). (E.g. , ECF No. 34-1 at 4–5.)

B. Questioning

After his arrest, Defendant was brought to the police station where he was interrogated by Pittman, beginning around 10 p.m. (ECF No. 35-1 at 00:00–00:34, 04:16–4:19.) Pittman prefaced his questioning, stating "I'm going to ask you some questions, but it's kinda just routine, dude. I'm going to read you your rights real quick, okay?" (Id. at 00:34–00:36.) He then recited a Miranda warning, asking Defendant if he understands. (Id. at 00:36–01:11.) Defendant nodded his head that he understood, and Pittman began his questioning. (Id. ) Pittman began by asking background questions, including who Defendant lived with. (Id. at 01:00–1:30.) Defendant responded, informing that he lived with his mother. (Id. ) Defendant shortly thereafter mentioned "I'm tired bro." (01:36–01:37.) Defendant also confirmed, in response to a question, that he had not yet graduated. (02:02–02:19.) Roughly another 28 minutes of questioning passed when Pittman decided to leave. (Id. at 02:19–30:40.) During the passing time, Pittman's questions largely focused on the purchase of the car and related circumstances, where Defendant was going at the time of his arrest, where Defendant got the money he had on him and other money-related questions, and where Defendant spent the two previous days—September 28 and 29. (Id. ) To the latter question, Defendant informed that he had spent those says in Vallejo. (Id. at 11:28–12:35.)

Before leaving, Pittman told Defendant that he had some important questions to ask him, and that he wanted Defendant to think...