United States v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 13 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-cr-642 (RJS),16-cr-642 (RJS) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JEROME SHAW Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Now before the Court is Defendant's motion to suppress statements made and property recovered by New Jersey police during a search conducted on October 21, 2012 in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Specifically, Defendant asserts that: (1) the stop and search of the Ford Explorer and duffle bag contained in its back seat (the "October 2012 Stop and Search") were illegal, and (2) the police failed to read him his Miranda rights, notwithstanding the fact that he was detained for over an hour. (Doc. Nos. 15, 23.) For the reasons set forth below, and as stated on the record at the oral argument on April 7, 2017, Defendant's motion is denied.
On October 21, 2012, Sergeant Emmett McDowell of the Upper Saddle River Police ("USRP") was on patrol of West Saddle River Road in a marked police vehicle. (Doc. No. 19-1 ("N.J. Op.") at 2.) At approximately 1:17 a.m., McDowell encountered a Ford Explorer blocking the south-bound lane, promptly approached the vehicle, and asked the driver - Defendant Jerome Shaw, Sr. ("Defendant" or "Shaw Sr.") - standard questions, such as what he was doing, where he was come from, and where he was going. (Id.) While standing outside the vehicle, McDowell observed that Shaw Sr. and his co-passenger, non-party Jerome Shaw, Jr. ("Shaw Jr."), were wearing black coveralls - notwithstanding the fact that it was a fairly warm evening - and appeared anxious in answering his questions. (Id.) Glancing toward the rear seat of the vehicle, McDowell also observed what appeared to be a gun case commonly used to store assault rifles (the "Back-Seat Case"). (Id.) When McDowell asked about the Back-Seat Case - which was within reach of both Shaw Sr. and Shaw Jr. - Shaw Sr. stated that it contained construction tools but did not include a gun. (Id.) He also told McDowell that he could look inside it if he wished. (Id. at 2-3.) As the only police officer on the scene, McDowell did not feel safe accessing the Back-Seat Case alone and requested backup. (Id. at 3.)
A few minutes later, USRP Officer Edward Riedel arrived on the scene, was briefed by McDowell, and, upon looking into the vehicle, agreed that the Back-Seat Case looked like a case used to store assault rifles. (Id.) Riedel then asked Shaw Sr. to step out of the Ford Explorer. As Shaw Sr. left the vehicle, Riedel observed "a pair of black gloves, a black mask, black goggles, and a racquetball-sized rock on the floorboard." (Id. at 3-4.) Shaw Jr., who "spoke very softly . . . and avoided eye contact," thereafter informed Riedel that he could "go ahead and check the rifle case because there were only construction tools inside." (Id. at 3, 12; see also Exhibit S-1 at 8:30 (video footage in which Shaw Sr. tells officers, "you can open up the back").)1 Riedel then opened the Back-Seat Case, in which he found "a large mallet, a pipe wrench, pry bars, cutting pliers, plastic zip ties, a screwdriver, crowbars, a rubber mallet, and kneepads." (N.J. Op. 3.) "Based on his training and experience," Riedel concluded that these materials were burglary tools. (Id.)
When interviewed by police prior to their arrest, both Shaw Sr. and Shaw Jr. claimed thatthey had worked in construction that evening; however, their coveralls were completely clean and had no dirt on them. (Id. at 9.) Shaw Sr. and Shaw Jr. also gave inconsistent descriptions of their construction activities. While Shaw Jr. claimed that they had been doing construction in a residential area, Shaw Sr. asserted that they had been working at a strip mall. (Id. at 4.) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the police placed Shaw Sr. and Shaw Jr. under arrest and advised them of their Miranda rights. (Id. at 4.) McDowell also served Shaw Sr. with three motor vehicle summonses for obstructing traffic, careless driving, and having an unclear rear plate in violation of New Jersey traffic laws. (Id. at 4-5.) While searching Shaw Jr. incident to the arrest, police found a sheet of white paper that included a handwritten list of residential addresses in Saddle River and the nearby Borough of Mendham. (Id.) Following the arrest of Shaw Sr. and Shaw Jr., the police conducted a full search of the Ford Explorer pursuant to a search warrant that revealed still more evidence, including a sledgehammer, a ladder, two black ski masks, and $600 in cash. (See Doc. No. 26-1.)
On April 23, 2013, a Bergen County Grand Jury indicted Shaw Sr. and Shaw Jr., charging them with one count of conspiracy to commit burglary in violation of N.J.S.A. §§ 2C:5-2, 2C:18-2 (third degree); six counts of purposely attempting to enter residences with the purpose of committing an offense therein in violation of N.J.S.A. §§ 2C:5-1, 2C:18-2(a)(1) (third degree); and three counts of possessing of certain weapons with the purpose of using them unlawfully against the person and/or property of another in violation of N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-4d (third degree). (Id. at 5-6.)
Prior to trial, Defendants moved to suppress the evidence obtained at the October 2012 Stop and Search. Following a five-day evidentiary hearing in March 2014 that included testimony from McDowell and Riedel and video footage taken by a police dashboard camera, theHonorable Liliana S. Deavila-Silebi of the Superior Court of New Jersey concluded that the police conducted a valid motor vehicle stop and protective sweep under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), since Defendant's Ford Explorer was impeding traffic and "McDowell had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that [Shaw Sr. and Shaw Jr.] could have a weapon (in the gun case) and may be engaged in criminal activity." (N.J. Op. 16-17.) In addition, Judge Deavila-Silebi determined that the seizures of physical evidence from Shaw Sr. and Shaw Jr., including the rifle case, black coveralls, black masks, black goggles, black gloves, and racquetball-sized rock, were not unconstitutional, since the police observed these items in "plain view" while standing outside the vehicle and reasonably concluded these items were burglary tools. (Id. at 11, 17.) She further concluded that the police held a "reasonable belief" that Shaw Sr. and Shaw Jr. threatened their safety since the Back-Seat Case was easily accessible to both men, and that both passengers consented to a search of the Back-Seat Case. Finally, Judge Deavila-Silebi also concluded that police had probable cause to arrest Shaw Sr. and Shaw Jr. since, among other things, police discovered burglar tools inside the Back-Seat Case, and both men acted suspiciously in interviews with police, gave inconsistent stories regarding their whereabouts that evening, and were wearing black coveralls, even though it was warm outside. (Id. at 14-15.) Therefore, she found that the search incident to arrest of Shaw Jr. that uncovered the list of residences in Upper Saddle River and Mendham was also justified. (Id.) Following the hearing, Shaw Sr. pleaded guilty and never appealed the denial of his suppression motion. (Doc. No. 22 at 4.)2
On September 21, 2016, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York returned an indictment charging Defendant with: (1) conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2314; (2) interstate transportation of stolen property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; (3) receipt and sale of stolen goods in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315; and (4) interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. (Doc. No. 7.) On September 28, 2016, Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. Trial is scheduled to commence on May 1, 2017. (Doc. No. 16 at 12-14.)
On January 17, 2017, Defendant filed motions requesting: (1) production and inspection of all materials possessed by the government favorable to Defendant pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, United States v. Giglio, and their progeny; (2) early disclosure of materials prescribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3500; (3) notice 60 days in advance of the May 1, 2017 trial of evidence the government intends to introduce pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and (4) disclosure of certain material pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of the Criminal Procedure (collectively, the "Discovery Motions"). (Doc. No. 14.) Defendant also moved to suppress statements made and property recovered during the October 2012 Stop and Search. (Id.) On January 31, 2017, the government filed its response and argued, among other things, that the motion to suppress property obtained during the October 2012 Stop and Search should be denied in light of the New Jersey Superior Court's rejection of virtually identical arguments following the five-day suppression hearing. (Doc. No. 19.)
On February 13, 2017, the Court denied Defendant's various discovery motions, but reserved decision on the motion to suppress and ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs concerning the applicability of collateral estoppel. (Doc. No. 21.) After receiving supplementary submissions from the parties on February 16, 2017 and February 22, 2017 (Doc.Nos. 22, 23), the Court, in an order dated February 23, 2017, directed Defendant to submit (1) a supplementary affidavit attesting to what statements, if any, he made to police officers on the night of the October 2012 Stop and Search that he is seeking to have suppressed, and (2) a letter specifying what evidence, if any, he intended to offer at a suppression hearing in this Court that had not already been introduced before the New Jersey Superior Court (Doc. No. 24 at 2).
In a supplemental letter, dated March 8, 2017, Defendant clarified that he did not intend to introduce any evidence beyond what was already considered in New Jersey Superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial