United States v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 03 April 2017
• Docket Number: Cr. No. 16-059 S.
• Citation: 248 F.Supp.3d 339
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. Jacorey SANDERS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

248 F.Supp.3d 339

UNITED STATES of America,

v.Jacorey SANDERS, Defendant.

Cr. No. 16-059 S.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

April 3, 2017

Terrence P. Donnelly, U.S. Attorney's Office, Providence, RI, for Plaintiff.

Tara I. Allen, Federal Public Defender Office, Providence, RI, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.

Defendant Jacorey Sanders has been indicted for one count of knowingly and intentionally possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Indictment ¶ 1, ECF No. 8.) The Defendant moves to suppress two handguns seized from his coat pocket during the traffic stop that preceded his arrest. (Def.'s Mot. to Suppress, ECF No. 20.) For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED.

I. Background

On April 30, 2016, at approximately 11:50 p.m., Rhode Island State Police Troopers Conor O'Donnell and Tyler Denniston were traveling south on Interstate 95 when their police cruiser pulled up parallel to a brown Nissan Murano. (Hr'g Tr. 5:1-6:19.) The troopers noticed that the front-seat passenger was not wearing a seatbelt, so they pulled behind the vehicle and activated their overhead lights. (Id. at 6:18–23.) As the vehicle began to slow down, both troopers noticed that the backseat passenger (the Defendant) abruptly moved from the rear-passenger seat to the rear-middle seat of the vehicle. (Id. at 7:3–5.) The vehicle traveled in the breakdown lane for approximately fifty yards before coming to a complete stop. (Id. at 7:19–24.)

Trooper O'Donnell approached the vehicle and began discussing the traffic infraction with the vehicle's occupants; he observed that the driver appeared "very nervous" and held the steering wheel very tightly throughout the conversation. (Id. at 9:2–4, 10:14–19.) Trooper O'Donnell also noticed the "very strong" odor of both recently burnt and fresh marijuana coming from the vehicle. (Id. at 11:10–12, 11:24–12:5, 13:7–9.) In addition, the trooper, using his flashlight, saw a small marijuana cigarette in an ashtray cup holder located in the center console of the vehicle. (Id. at 12:9–14.) The front-seat passenger confirmed that they had recently smoked marijuana when Trooper O'Donnell asked about the smell. (Id. at 11:15–23.) During this time, Trooper O'Donnell observed the front-seat passenger's hands tucked under his coat; the passenger complied with the trooper's request to remove them and make them visible. (Id. at 13:12–16.) While collecting identification from the occupants, Trooper O'Donnell noticed that the Defendant, who was seated in the back seat, was oddly fixated on his phone's GPS program, that he seemed "disinterested" in the stop, and that he was wearing only a muscle shirt while his jacket was across his lap; both troopers testified that it was relatively cold outside that night.¹ (Id. at 6:9, 14:6–21.) Trooper O'Donnell later testified that the occupants "displaying signs of nervousness and disinterest in the stop" led him "to believe that something may be going on within the car." (Id. at 13:21–25.)²

Both troopers returned to the police cruiser to conduct standard law enforcement checks on the occupants; these included checking the validity of the produced licenses and checking for any possible outstanding warrants. (Id. at 16:23–25.) Trooper O'Donnell testified that it took him approximately five to ten seconds to input the information for this check, and that the results came back "almost instantaneous[ly]." (Id. at 17:7–8, 18–19.) There were no outstanding warrants for any of the occupants, and the driver had a valid license. (Id. at 18:17–19:1.) The troopers then ran a criminal background check through the BCI/III program, which also took approximately five to ten seconds per person to input the information. (Id. at 17:20–18:3.) The results, which also came back "almost instant[ly]," indicated that all three occupants had significant criminal histories, and that Defendant's history in particular included violent crimes. (Id. at 18:12–14, 19:2–22.) Based on the results of the criminal background check and the behavior of the occupants during the stop, the troopers decided to call other troopers to assist at the scene. (Id. at 23:23–24.) At this point, the troopers had not issued a traffic citation or indicated to the occupants whether there would be a citation at all. (See id. at 23:15–18.) Trooper O'Donnell testified that both types of inquiries, for all three individuals, took approximately five to ten minutes total. (Id. at 99:5–6.)

Trooper O'Donnell and Trooper Denniston then approached the vehicle and Trooper Denniston asked the driver to exit while Trooper O'Donnell stood at the rear driver side door's bumper. (Id. at 25:6–11.) When the driver opened his door, Trooper O'Donnell saw a "large clear plastic baggie containing a greenish brown leafy substance, which [he] believed to be marijuana, in the lower driver side door pocket." (Id. at 25:14–17.) A Terry pat down of the driver's person yielded an illegal weapon; the driver was immediately taken into custody.

(Id. at 29:18–21.) Shortly thereafter, additional troopers arrived to the scene, id. at 30:1–5, then Troopers Denniston and O'Donnell asked the front seat passenger and the Defendant to exit the vehicle. (Id. at 30:6–9.) A Terry pat down of both individuals did not yield any weapons. (Id. at 30:10–16.) Trooper O'Donnell then seized the clear plastic baggie from the driver's door side pocket and the cupholder from the center console. (Id. at 31:12–14.) From the front passenger's door side pocket, Trooper O'Donnell seized a "small clear plastic baggie" with marijuana inside it. (Id. at 31:15–19.) Then, from the backseat, Trooper O'Donnell lifted the jacket previously held by the Defendant but left in the car when he exited the vehicle. (Id. at 30:19–31:2, 31:21–23.) Trooper O'Donnell testified that "the coat was very heavy, heavier than a normal winter coat, and [he] heard the distinct sound of two objects that were metal clinking together. (Id. at 31:23–32:1.) He found two pistols in one pocket. (Id. at 32:2–4.) The Defendant and the front seat passenger were then taken into custody before Trooper O'Donnell continued his search of the jacket and found several rounds of ammunition in another pocket; he also discovered that the pistols were fully loaded with ammunition. (Id. at 32:5–13, 36:1–3.) In addition, Trooper O'Donnell seized suspected crack cocaine from the rear pocket of the front passenger seat. (Id. at 38:20–22.)

II. Discussion

The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ...." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. A traffic stop, even if brief and for a limited purpose, constitutes a "seizure" under this provision.³ See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). This protection is not only afforded to the driver of the vehicle, but also extends to the vehicle's occupants. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809–10, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) ; Prouse, 440 U.S. at 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391. In order to be "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, the officer's detention must be supported by "probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred," Whren, 517 U.S. at 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, or "reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct involving a motor vehicle or its operation," United States v. Jenkins, 680 F.3d 101, 104 (1st Cir. 2012). See also United States v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2001).

During a lawful traffic stop, the law enforcement officer may order the driver and the occupants out of the vehicle. United States v. McGregor, 650 F.3d 813, 820 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 410, 414–15, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) ). The officer may conduct a Terry frisk of the driver's person or the other occupants for weapons "if he has some articulable, reasonable suspicion that the persons stopped may be dangerous." Id. In addition, the officer may "search the car's interior—including closed compartments—for weapons that they could quickly lay their hands on." Id. (citing Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1037, 1049–50, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) ).

Moreover, the First Circuit has held that "when a law enforcement officer detects the odor of marijuana emanating from a confined area, such as the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, that olfactory evidence furnishes the officer with probable cause to conduct a search of the confined area." United States v. Staula, 80 F.3d 596, 602 (1st Cir. 1996) (stating that the search "may encompass all areas of the vehicle in which the suspected contraband is likely to be found"). If, while conducting a lawful search of a vehicle, the officers discover contraband, that evidence provides the officers probable cause to continue searching the vehicle for further contraband. Id. at 603.

Finally, if the driver of the vehicle is arrested during the stop, the officers may conduct a search of the vehicle incident to a lawful arrest. Id. However, a search incident to a lawful arrest for weapons may only extend to places within the grab area of the suspect while the suspect is unsecured, or for evidence of the crime of arrest if there is a "reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence." Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009).

In this motion⁴ , the Defendant argues that the two pistols seized during the search should be suppressed because (1) the criminal background checks conducted by the law enforcement officers were not reasonably related to the mission of the traffic stop; and (2) that once the license and warrant checks were completed, each of the troopers' subsequent actions constituted a criminal investigation for which they did not have an independent lawful basis. (Def.'s Mot. to Suppress 9, 12.) The Defendant specifically contends that neither the...