United States v. Sellers
| Citation | 897 F.Supp.2d 754 |
| Decision Date | 14 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:08 CR 23.,2:08 CR 23. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Sidney O. SELLERS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David A. Capp, Jacqueline L. Jacobs, Jennifer S. Chang–Adiga, AUSA, U.S. Attorney's Office, Hammond, IN, for United States of America.
On May 14, 2008, defendant Sidney Sellers was indicted on one count of possessing with the intent to distribute fifty or more grams of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), one count of possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (DE # 38.) Defendant went to trial in 2008, and was convicted on all counts. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed defendant's conviction on appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial, including all pre-trial proceedings. United States v. Sellers, 645 F.3d 830, 840 (7th Cir.2011.)
On March 1, 2012, defendant filed the current motion to suppress. (DE # 134.) The government responded a few weeks later (DE # 137), and defendant filed a reply brief. (DE # 139.)
At the September 12, 2012, suppression hearing, DEA Special Agent Hubert Davidson, Gary Police Corporal Mike Smith, and Gary Police officer Doug Geyer all testified. The government also introduced exhibits. Defendant's counsel cross examined all three law enforcement officers. The court finds testimony of Agent Davidson, Cpl. Smith, and Officer Geyer to be credible.
On February 18, 2008, a confidential informant (“CI”) contacted DEA Special Agent Hubert Davidson and told Agent Davidson that he had set up a deal where the CI would purchase nine ounces of crack from a supplier. The CI told agent Davidson that he had been in contact with an individual named Brian (last name unknown). Brian had arranged for an individual named Sid (last name unknown) to deliver the nine ounces of crack to the CI. The CI had provided Agent Davidson with information in the past.
The CI also told Agent Davidson that he had purchased crack from Sid on two prior occasions. He described Sid as a heavyset black male, approximately 34–35 years old, with short hair, and gold teeth. The CI also told Agent Davidson that Sid liked to drive fancy cars. The CI had previously seen Sid driving a Dodge Magnum, a 2006 blue Nissan Maxima, a GMC Denali, and also a foreign car, although the make was unknown to the CI. Agent Davidson told the CI to call him the next day so they could arrange the transaction.
On the following day, after getting in contact with the CI, law enforcement set up preparations for monitoring the exchange. The DEA held a meeting in Gary outlining the operation with law enforcement officers from Michigan City, Merrillville, and Gary. The agents hoped to conduct the transaction at the McDonald's on Grant street in Gary. The agents that were monitoring the transaction were planning on conducting a traffic stop on Sid's vehicle prior to the transaction. The CI and agents left the CI's vehicle parked in the McDonald's parking lot and waited at the 80/94 overpass.
The CI continued to contact Brian at the request of the agents. Brian could not identify the car that Sid was driving that day, but did inform the CI that Sid was passing Cline Avenue, which is a few exits west of Grant Street. In a subsequent phone call, Brian informed the CI that Sid was located at the Champs liquor store on Grant street.
After learning about Sid's current location, the agents and the CI, who at that point were still located near the 80/94 expressway entrance ramp, started driving toward the McDonald's parking lot.2 Upon passing Champs, Agent Davidson noticed a silver Nissan Maxima parked at the liquor store. There were only two cars parked at the liquor store at that point: the Maxima, and another car.3 Other units noticed that the Maxima was occupied by a black male. The maxima had backed into the parking space, which Agent Davidson thought was odd for that particular parking lot. After the CI saw the Maxima, he told agents it was similar to the vehicles that he had seen Sid drive in the past, although he had not ever seen Sid driving this particular car.
At that point, Brian called the CI again, who told the CI that Sid was preparing to leave the Champs liquor store. The agents and the CI, who had driven past Champs, turned around and started heading back toward Champs. Other units observed the Maxima leaving the Champs parking lot.
Cpl. Mike Smith of the Gary Police Department was also part of the investigation. Cpl. Smith was getting updates from the DEA agents from Gary Police Officer Doug Geyer, who had a DEA radio, and was getting updates from DEA agents throughout the operation. Cpl. Smith knew that the target of the investigation was possibly parked at the Champs liquor store, and Cpl. Smith observed the Silver Maxima leave the champs parking lot and turn north onto Grant street. Cpl. Smith then observed the Maxima, which was driving in the left lane, make an abrupt lane change to the right lane, causing several cars to swerve to avoid getting into a collision. Cpl. Smith believed the driver of the Maxima had just committed a traffic violation.4 At that point, Cpl. Smith activated his lights and effectuated a traffic stop of the Maxima.5
After stopping the Maxima, Cpl. Smith asked the driver of the vehicle for his driver's license and registration. Smith also told the driver the reason for the stop, and the driver admitted the traffic violations and tried to justify the maneuver he had just made. The driver produced a license, but could not find his registration. The license revealed that the driver's name was Sidney Sellers.
Another Gary Police Department officer, Doug Geyer, arrived at the scene and ran a check on defendant's license. That check revealed that defendant's license was valid and that he did not have any active warrants. While Officer Geyer ran this check, Agent Davidson slowly drove by the traffic stop with the CI, and the CI identified the driver of the Maxima as “Sid.” Cpl. Smith was standing next to Officer Geyer's vehicle at that point, and heard over the police radio that the CI had identified the driver as Sid. Defendant was still in his vehicle at that point.
Cpl. Smith returned to the vehicle and asked defendant if he had found his registration. Defendant had not found his registration. Defendant appeared very nervous. Cpl. Smith then asked defendant to step out of his vehicle so they could speak at the rear of the vehicle.
Cpl. Smith asked defendant if he had any weapons on his person. Defendant said that he did not, but that he had a gun in the vehicle, which was located between the driver's seat and the center console. Defendant also told Smith that he had a gun permit in his wallet. Smith asked to see the permit, and defendant produced an Illinois firearm owner's identification card. Defendant, however, failed to produce a valid Indiana handgun license.
Officer Geyer then entered the front seat of defendant's car and retrieved a fully-loaded Glock 9mm semiautomatic handgun. The gun was exactly where defendant said it would be—between the driver's seat and the center console. After the gun was recovered, defendant was handcuffed and arrested for possessing a handgun without a license.
After defendant was placed under arrest, Cpl. Smith decided the vehicle needed to be towed because defendant was under arrest and there was no one else there to move the vehicle. Cpl. Smith also did an inventory search of the Maxima prior to towing the vehicle. While doing the inventory search, Cpl. Smith found several plastic bags containing a powdery substance, which, according to the parties' briefs, was later identified as the crack and powder cocaine that led to defendant's indictment. Cpl. Smith eventually cancelled the tow request because Agent Davidson informed him that the DEA was going to take control of the vehicle.
Later that day, when he got back to the station, Cpl. Smith wrote defendant citations for unsafe movement (Ind.Code 9–21–8–24) and for failing to have his registration (Ind.Code 9–18–2–21).
Defendant makes several arguments. Defendant argues that the stop of his car was illegal for two reasons. First, he argues that there was no traffic violation. Second, he argues the investigation leading up to the traffic stop did not give law enforcement agents reasonable suspicion to make the stop. (DE # 134.) Defendant also argues that the search of his vehicle's passenger compartment that recovered the gun cannot be justified by either probable cause or officer safety. Finally, defendant argues that the search of the trunk that revealed the drugs was not a proper inventory search because his arrest was not justified. Defendant also argues police did not have probable cause to search the trunk. Each of these arguments will be addressed in turn.
IV. ANALYSISA. The Initial Stop of Defendant's Car
Defendant's argument with regard to the traffic violation is that there was no traffic violation. (DE # 134 at 6.) Specifically, defendant argues that the testimony of the law enforcement officers at the suppression hearing was inconsistent as to the traffic violation, and therefore, the government cannot prove that a traffic violation occurred.
As a general rule, a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment any time the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. United States v. Smith, 668 F.3d 427, 430 (7th Cir.2012); see also United States v. Cashman, 216 F.3d 582, 586 (7th Cir.2000) (). “The pr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Noel
...and it was unreasonable to believe evidence of traffic violation would be found inside vehicle). But see United States v. Sellers, 897 F.Supp.2d 754 (N.D.Ind.2012) (warrantless vehicle search proper where driver was standing at trunk of car, was not handcuffed, had informed police he had a ......
- Pierce v. Commonfields of Cahokia Pub. Water Dist.
-
State v. Noel, 14-0174
...and it was unreasonable to believe evidence of traffic violation would be found inside vehicle). But see United States v. Sellers, 897 F. Supp. 2d 754 (N.D. Ind. 2012) (warrantless vehicle search proper where driver was standing at trunk of car, was not handcuffed, had informed police he ha......
-
Stewart v. City of Fort Wayne
...for [the police officer] to believe that the [traffic violation had occurred]." (emphasis in original)).United States v. Sellers, 897 F.Supp.2d 754, 761 (N.D. Ind. 2012). In the present case, Lichtsinn had probable cause to initiate the traffic stop due to Stewart's failure to properly sign......