United States v. Roberts
Decision Date | 17 October 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 5:19-mj-22-MJF |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Ted L. ROBERTS |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Michelle Kathleen Daffin, Northern District of Florida DOJ-USAO, Panama City, FL, for Plaintiff.
David Frakt, Orlando, FL, for Defendant.
This matter is before this court on Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement personnel. (Doc. 14).
On August 22, 2019, this court conducted a suppression hearing. At the hearing the government presented testimony from three witnesses: Air Force Technical Sergeant Grace Taylor, Staff Sergeant Matthew Herd, Jr., and Staff Sergeant Jonathan Nengo,1 all of whom were part of the security forces on Tyndall Air Force Base. Defendant Ted L. Roberts also testified at the hearing.
On January 20, 2019, Roberts—a retired Air Force officer who was employed by the Air Force at Tyndall Air Force Base—twice called an armorer at the Tyndall Air Force Base armory. Roberts spoke with Senior Airman Crushong and informed him that he was bringing two handguns to the armory for storage. Roberts stated that he sought to store his handguns at the armory because his house had been damaged by Hurricane Michael,2 and he believed that he could not secure the firearms at his home, particularly because construction workers were repairing his house. Roberts wanted to ensure that the firearms did not fall into the hands of criminals. According to Roberts, based on his reading of the Tyndall Air Force Base lodging guide, he believed that he could store his firearms at the Tyndall armory because he was living in temporary lodging on Tyndall Air Force Base.
On January 20, 2019, after speaking with the armorer, Roberts brought two loaded handguns to the Tyndall Air Force Base armory. Outside the armory, Staff Sergeant Herd saw Roberts remove two concealed handguns from his belt line. This caught Sergeant Herd's attention because he believed that carrying a concealed firearm required approval from members of the Tyndall Air Force Base command staff. At the suppression hearing, Roberts conceded that he had placed his handguns inside his waistband after extracting them from the center console of his truck.
Sergeant Herd then observed Roberts attempting to remove ammunition from a semi-automatic handgun by retracting the slide and thereby ejecting bullets through the ejection port. While doing so, Roberts's handgun was pointed in the direction of Sergeant Herd and a fellow security forces officer, which necessarily posed the danger of an accidental discharge striking Sergeant Herd and his fellow airman. Sergeant Herd yelled for Roberts to put his weapon on the ground, and Roberts complied.
Roberts related to Sergeant Herd that he was bringing his weapons to the armory for storage and that he was authorized to do so. According to Sergeant Herd, Roberts stated that his commander had authorized him to carry his firearms concealed.3 Sergeant Herd then instructed Roberts of a safer and more efficient way to clear ammunition from his weapon: removing the magazine from the weapon. Roberts then took his handguns and magazines to a service window at the armory. It is unclear from the testimony whether Roberts's hands entered the armory when he submitted his handguns to the armorer.
While presenting his firearms to the armorer—Senior Airman Crushong—the armorer asked if Roberts had in his possession the "paperwork" for the weapons. Roberts replied in the negative, but stated that he would bring the paperwork to the armory. Roberts then departed the armory while his handguns remained at the armory. According to Sergeant Herd, he or another airman asked or instructed Roberts to return with the requisite paperwork, and Sergeant Herd expected that Roberts would return immediately. According to Roberts, he knew that he was obliged to return to the armory with some paperwork, but he claims that he did not believe that he was required to return immediately. In any event, Roberts did not return to the armory that day.
Sergeant Herd contacted his supervisor, Technical Sergeant Grace Taylor, to inquire about Tyndall Air Force Base's policy regarding the possession and storage of firearms. Sergeant Herd related to Sergeant Taylor what had transpired, and Sergeant Taylor instructed Sergeant Herd to investigate. Later, Sergeant Taylor also spoke with Senior Airman Crushong and he informed her that Roberts never brought him the paperwork required for storing his firearms at the armory. After looking into the matter, Sergeant Taylor concluded that Roberts likely did not have authorization to bring his firearms to Tyndall Air Force Base. After consultation with her superiors and at least one Air Force judge advocate,4 Sergeant Taylor concluded that there existed probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed, and she elected to apprehend Roberts. Sergeant Taylor learned that Roberts was staying at the Sand Dollar Inn, which is a place for temporary lodging on Tyndall that is similar to a motel.
On the evening of January 20, 2019, Sergeant Taylor, Sergeant Herd, Sergeant Nengo, and Staff Sergeant Matthews traveled to the Sand Dollar Inn on Tyndall Air Force Base to apprehend Roberts for the purpose of interrogating him. The four were wearing their respective Air Force uniforms and were armed with handguns, although they did not have their handguns drawn. Around 6:05 p.m., Taylor knocked on the door to Roberts's suite and said "security forces." In response, Roberts opened the door to his suite. Sergeant Taylor told Roberts that she wanted to speak to him about an incident and asked him to step outside of his suite. Taylor also informed Roberts that she and the others were security forces personnel and that Roberts had been seen carrying two concealed firearms on Tyndall.
At some point Sergeant Taylor allowed Roberts to get dressed, as he was wearing only a towel or shorts.5 The undisputed testimony—including Roberts's testimony—is that none of the security forces personnel entered Roberts's suite.6 While they were speaking with Roberts, the security forces personnel remained in an area accessible to any member of the public who could gain access to Tyndall Air Force Base. The door to Roberts's suite faced an open parking lot. Sergeant Taylor told Roberts that she was going to take Roberts into custody. Once Roberts was dressed and he emerged from his suite, Sergeant Herd secured Roberts with handcuffs, and Sergeant Nengo advised Roberts of his Miranda rights.7
Sergeant Matthews and Sergeant Herd transported Roberts to the Tyndall Air Force Base Defense Operations Center, which was functioning as the Base's police station. According to Sergeant Taylor and Sergeant Herd, Roberts was not free to decline their request/instruction to accompany the officers to the Defense Operations Center and he was not free to leave until the security forces personnel finished questioning him. Roberts confirmed that the officers handcuffed him behind his back, and he did not believe that he had the option to refuse.
At some point after they arrived at the Defense Operations Center, security forces personnel removed the handcuffs and placed Roberts at a table in a hallway so that he could write a statement. After more than one hour, Sergeant Taylor advised Roberts of his Miranda rights in writing. Roberts signed the Miranda rights waiver form and indicated that he was willing to answer questions without first consulting with an attorney.
Roberts provided a written statement, which was admitted as government's exhibit 1. The first portion was written by Roberts. In the second part—which entails questions and answers—the questions were written by Sergeant Herd and the answers were written by Roberts. Although portions are illegible, it appears to state:
After Roberts...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Privette
... ... fellow officer rule, originated in Williams v ... United States , 308 F.2d 326, 327 (D.C. Cir. 1962), where ... the United States Court of Appeals for ... regarding suspect); United States v ... Roberts , 410 F.Supp.3d 1268, 1282 (N.D. Fla. 2019), ... quoting United States v. Willis , 759 ... ...
-
United States v. Manning
... ... 2002) (per curiam) ... (citation and internal marks omitted). “This does not ... require an actual showing of criminal activity, but ... ‘only a probability or substantial chance of criminal ... activity.'” United States v. Roberts , 410 ... F.Supp.3d 1268, 1281 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (quoting ... Gates , 462 U.S. at 243 n.13). The “probable ... cause standard is practical and non-technical, applied in a ... specific factual context and evaluated using the totality of ... the circumstances.” Skop ... ...
-
Taylor v. Pennycuff
... ... SGT. GREG PENNYCUFF; and DEP. TRAVIS ROBILLARD, Defendants. Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-236 United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division March 28, 2022 ... prosecutors. See United States v. Roberts , 410 ... F.Supp.3d 1268, 1283 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (finding probable cause ... to arrest ... ...