United States v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 08 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-CR-125-A |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JOHN SANDERS, JR., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA JUDGE.
Defendant John Sanders, Jr., is charged in nine counts of a 28-count Second Superseding Indictment with various narcotics-related offenses, including a narcotics conspiracy at Count 1.[1] Dkt. No. 291. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for the conduct of pretrial proceedings. Dkt. Nos. 4, 43.
After conducting a suppression hearing, on January 19, 2021 Magistrate Judge McCarthy filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), Dkt. No. 502, recommending that the Court grant the motions by Defendant to suppress evidence obtained on August 31, 2018 and November 26, 2018, Dkt. No 99, pp. 6-7. The Government filed objections to those recommendations. See Dkt. No. 517. Defendant filed his response in opposition thereto, Dkt. No. 531, and the Government filed reply papers, Dkt. No. 539. Oral argument on the Government's objections was held before the Court on April 28, 2021. See CM/ECF Minute Entry, 04/28/2021. The Court thereafter required further briefing. See Dkt. No. 546. The parties' supplemental papers were then filed, see Dkt. Nos. 549, 550, and oral argument was continued on June 2, 2021, see CM/ECF Minute Entry, 06/02/2021.
Upon de novo review, and for the additional reasons that follow, the Court ADOPTS Judge McCarthy's R&R. Defendant's suppression motions are GRANTED, and the Government's objections are OVERRULED and its request to reopen the suppression hearing for a limited purpose is DENIED.
On a dispositive matter, such as motions to suppress, the magistrate judge may only issue an R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C §636(b)(1)(C), the Court applies a de novo standard of review to the portions of a report and recommendation to which specific objections have been raised. When a party does not object to a portion of an R&R, or when a party makes objections that are conclusory, general, or without legal support, a district court reviews those portions for clear error. See United States v. Preston, 635 F.Supp.2d 267, 269 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the prior proceedings and the issues that are under review. The facts relevant to Defendant's motions are discussed below only to the extent necessary to explain the Court's analysis.
On August 21, 2018, a search warrant was issued by a Buffalo City Court Judge, authorizing a search of the premises described as Dkt. No. 463-2 (Gov't Ex. 2 [search warrant]). The search warrant further states that 67 Townsend is “occupied” by an “Unknown B/m 5'-10'' 185-200 lbs in his late 20's to early 30's dark complexion with a beard.” Dkt. No. 463-2, p. 2. It authorizes a search of “any person thereat or therein . . . for the following property, to wit: CRACK COCAINE and for any personal papers or documents which tend to identify the owner, leasee or whomever has custody or control over the premises . . . searched or the items seized and seize said property forthwith”. The search warrant was to be executed within 10 days of the date it was issued. See Dkt. No. 463-2, p. 2.
Ten days later, on August 31, 2018, Officer AB Patterson was part of the search warrant team that searched the premises of 67 Townsend, with his objective “to be in the area so people that are around don't think it's a burglary” and if “there's anybody that['s] running, we stay on the outside perimeter to chase after them”. See Dkt. 463-4, p. 1 (Gov't Ex. 4A []).
Officer Patterson first testified that in approaching the premises he saw a group of people running from the building, and he chased one person who ran to the right side of 67 Townsend. That individual was wearing a red shirt, and Officer Patterson identified him during the hearing as Defendant. See Dkt. 463-4, p. 7 (Gov't Ex. 4G [photograph of Defendant]). When Officer Patterson focused on Defendant, he saw him run “to the right side of the house”, ending up on what appears to be a concrete driveway/ walkway leading to the rear, righthand side of the house, near the backyard. See Dkt. 463-4, pp. 1, 3, 4 (). There, Defendant turned and lowered himself to the ground as if surrendering and Defendant was apprehended on the ground in that location. Approximately 5 to 10 feet from Defendant to the right side of the house (if facing the façade of 67 Townsend from the street) was a crumpled-up tent in a vacant lot, with another house to the right of that vacant lot. See Dkt. 463-4, p. 2 ().
When specifically asked where Defendant started running from, Officer Patterson later testified, He followed this with, “I want to say I saw him running on the right side of the house . . .” Magistrate Judge McCarthy found that Officer Patterson “could not say where Sanders ran from”.
Officer Patterson detained and handcuffed Defendant, and then searched him and recovered his wallet, which contained his identification; his cell phone, an “unknown amount of money”; and keys. See Dkt. 463-4, p. 9 (Gov't Ex. 4I []). He patted Defendant down and handed all the contents of Defendant's pockets over to a detective. Officer Patterson “did not find anything illegal” on Defendant, although he later found marijuana, i.e., “multiple bags” with “cylinders of weed inside” them under the tent in the vacant lot adjacent to 67 Townsend. See Dkt. 463-4, p. 2 (); Dkt. No. 466, p. 12 (Hr. Tr.). There was no testimony about the amount of marijuana found under the tent, although the Buffalo Police Report from that date notes there was “over 2 oz.” of marijuana and “cut”. Dkt. No. 463-1 (Gov't Ex. 1), p. 2.
Detective Raymond Krug was also a part of the search team on August 31, 2018. He testified that he was aware that Townsend Street “had high activity of narcotics dealings” and that marijuana and crack cocaine were being sold at 67 Townsend. He admitted that he had not seen the search warrant prior to the raid and that he was not involved in obtaining the warrant, although he was aware that the search was pursuant to a warrant. Detective Krug also testified that he did not know if the search warrant described Defendant, or if Defendant lived at 67 Townsend or had ever been inside the property. Dkt. No. 466, pp. 52-53.
He saw Defendant in the backyard of the premises. Detective Krug was familiar with Defendant, having observed him at another premises in 2013 or 2014 when Defendant was arrested for possession of narcotics. He testified that Defendant was placed in handcuffs before marijuana was found in the tent adjacent to 67 Townsend and before crack cocaine was found in a vacant garage across the street from 67 Townsend. See Dkt. 463-4, p. 6 (). When asked whether 67 Townsend was searched, Detective Krug responded in the affirmative; however, he could not remember if anything was found inside the apartment. There was no testimony concerning the length of the search in the lower apartment at 67 Townsend, or when that search began and ended in relation to Defendant's arrest. Detective Krug collected the money recovered from Defendant and gave it to his supervisor to count. The cash totaled over $1, 400.
The Buffalo Police Report from August 31, 2018 reflects that Defendant was charged with New York Penal Law § 221.15 (criminal possession of marijuana in the 4th degree). Dkt. No. 463-1 (Gov't Ex. 1), p. 1.
The Government conceded at the June 2, 2021 continuation of oral argument there is nothing in the record regarding surveillance of 67 Townsend or how long that surveillance had been conducted before August 31, 2018.
The Government's primary objection is that the search and seizures were conducted pursuant to a validly issued and properly executed New York State search warrant, an argument that the Government admits it did not make “explicitly” below. Nevertheless, it asserts that the R&R “overlooked” this “simple fact” and that the Magistrate Judge misapplied the law relative to warrantless searches and seizures.
The Government's reasoning is as follows: (1) Defendant was lawfully detained pursuant to the doctrines in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) and Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013) because he was within the “immediate vicinity” of the search warrant location, 67 Townsend; (2) upon seizing Defendant, the officers could conduct a “limited search” of Defendant as a “self-protective measure”; and (3) “(b)ased on these principles alone, officers acted properly in seizing the defendant's personal belongings.” Dkt. No. 517, p. 9.
Judge McCarthy did not address the issue of whether Defendant's initial detention was lawful...
To continue reading
Request your trial