United States v. Simpkins

• Decision Date: 15 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-1948,19-1948
• Citation: 978 F.3d 1
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert SIMPKINS, Defendant, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

978 F.3d 1

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.Robert SIMPKINS, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 19-1948

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

October 15, 2020

Sarah A. Churchill and Nichols & Churchill, P.A., Portland, ME, on brief for appellant.

Halsey B. Frank, United States Attorney, and Julia M. Lipez, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

Before Torruella, Selya, and Thompson, Circuit Judges.

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

When gauging the validity of a motor vehicle search under the so-called automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, see U.S. Const. amend. IV, probable cause furnishes the beacon by which courts must steer. In this appeal, defendant-appellant Robert Simpkins asseverates that the district court misfigured the probable cause equation. Concluding, as we do, that this asseveration is groundless and that the defendant's other claims of error are equally futile, we affirm the judgment below.

I. BACKGROUND

We rehearse the facts as supportably found by the district court following an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress both physical evidence and statements made at the scene of a traffic stop. When necessary, we flesh out these findings with uncontested facts drawn from the record. See United States v. Dancy, 640 F.3d 455, 458 (1st Cir. 2011).

On March 21, 2018, a traffic stop conducted by the Maine State Police netted a driver in possession of a large quantity of oxycodone pills and Suboxone

strips. That driver, whom we shall call "CD," subsequently became a cooperating defendant. He told the troopers that he had bought the contraband from "Rob," an individual who lived in Rhode Island. Text messages between CD and Rob, disclosed to the troopers, discussed prices and quantities of "pinks," "green ones," and "strips." CD added to the troopers' store of knowledge by furnishing a cellphone number for Rob, a description of Rob's house and car, and an insight that while CD usually traveled to Rob to buy drugs, Rob sometimes traveled to Maine.

Working with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Maine State Police discovered that the cellphone number supplied by CD belonged to defendant-appellant Robert Simpkins. A photograph of the defendant was obtained from the Rhode Island Department of Motor Vehicles and shown to CD, who confirmed that the individual depicted was the man who had been selling drugs to him. Further research confirmed that the defendant's residence and vehicle matched the descriptions provided by CD.

In April of 2018, CD began working with law enforcement officers to orchestrate a meeting with the defendant in Maine. On April 4, CD called the defendant and told him that he was unable to make a planned trip to Rhode Island and asked that the defendant advise him about any sojourns he might be taking to Maine. This call was recorded and, after some further (unmonitored) communications between the two men, the defendant agreed that he would come to Maine on April 28.

When April 28 dawned, surveillance of the defendant commenced outside his Rhode Island home. A DEA task force member observed the defendant load several items into his car, including a box that he placed in the trunk. Between loads, the defendant locked his car and kept a wary eye on his surroundings. Before the defendant left for Maine, CD called him and asked for a final price. The defendant responded by texting that he was "[h]eading out about 2" and was looking for "3850 if it ain't short."

Once his car was loaded, the defendant drove to a nearby parking lot, exited his vehicle, and entered another vehicle. The second vehicle drove a short distance before doubling back and returning the defendant to his own car. The defendant then started his drive to Maine, followed surreptitiously by members of the task force.

Shortly after crossing the border into Maine, the defendant's vehicle was intercepted by the Maine State Police. Because they were aware that the defendant owned a number of firearms, the troopers followed their procedures for high-risk arrests: they removed the defendant from his car at gunpoint, ordered him to the ground, and handcuffed him. Asked if he had "anything on" him, the defendant stated that he had only a pocketknife. Palpating another item while conducting a pat-down of the handcuffed defendant, the trooper asked: "What's that?" The defendant replied that the bulge was "[j]ust a little bit of fentanyl."

Next, a drug-sniffing dog explored the inside and outside of the defendant's vehicle. The dog, trained to detect several types of narcotics but not oxycodone

or Suboxone, did not alert. Nevertheless, a search of the defendant's vehicle disclosed an envelope containing Suboxone strips in the passenger compartment and thereafter a box containing an electrical device called a ballast in the trunk. Concealed behind a panel on the ballast was a smell-resistant "Stink Sack" holding quantities of oxycodone and other illicit substances.

While the vehicle search was underway, a state trooper spoke with the defendant in a police cruiser. After reading the defendant his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the trooper told him that he had been detained as part of a federal investigation into drug-trafficking and urged his cooperation. The defendant admitted to possessing the fentanyl found in his pocket, and he later admitted to possessing the Suboxone

found in his car. He nonetheless disclaimed any involvement in drug-trafficking. Then — upon seeing a trooper open the ballast — he blurted out that "[s]he found it all." At that point, the defendant was arrested.

In due season, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Maine returned a superseding indictment charging the defendant with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, see id. § 841(a)(1). The defendant maintained his innocence and moved to suppress both the physical evidence found during the search of his vehicle and the statements he had made at the scene. In support, he argued that the authorities lacked probable cause to search his car and that his statements were obtained in derogation of his Miranda rights.

After an evidentiary hearing and plethoric briefing, the district court denied the defendant's motion to suppress. See United States v. Simpkins, No. 2:18-cr-115, 2019 WL 148650, at *1 (D. Me. Jan. 9, 2019). In the aftermath of that ruling, the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to count 2 (possession with intent to distribute oxycodone), preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. On September 10, 2019, the district court dismissed count 1 of the indictment on the government's motion and sentenced the defendant to a twenty-four-month term of immurement on count 2. This timely appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

Our analysis proceeds in two main parts. First, we examine the defendant's contention that the authorities lacked probable cause to search his vehicle. Second, we examine his Miranda-based claims. We subdivide this latter examination into distinct segments, focusing separately on statements made before and after the provision of Miranda warnings.

Our standard of review is familiar. We appraise the district court's denial of the motion to suppress through a bifurcated lens, accepting the court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous but subjecting its legal conclusions to de novo review. See United States v. Arnott, 758 F.3d 40, 43 (1st Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001). In the absence of legal error, "we will uphold a refusal to suppress evidence as long as the refusal is supported by some reasonable view of the record." United States v. Arthur, 764 F.3d 92, 96 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lee, 317 F.3d 26, 29-30 (1st Cir. 2003) ).

A. The Vehicle Search.

When the so-called "automobile exception" applies — and this is such a case — a warrantless search of an automobile may proceed so long as the authorities have probable cause to believe that contraband is within the particular vehicle.¹ See California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991) ; United States v. Silva, 742 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2014). A finding of probable cause does not demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt but, rather, may be made "when the totality of the circumstances create ‘a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’ " United States v. Almonte-Báez, 857 F.3d 27, 31-32 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Tanguay, 787 F.3d 44, 50 (1st Cir. 2015) ). Intelligence supplied by an informant may support a finding of probable cause when "the probability of a lying or inaccurate informer has been sufficiently reduced." United States v. Gifford, 727 F.3d 92, 99 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Greenburg, 410 F.3d 63, 69 (1st Cir. 2005) ).

In order to assist in assessing the credibility of an informant, we previously have set forth a non-exhaustive compendium of potentially relevant factors. See United States v. White, 804 F.3d 132, 137 (1st Cir. 2015). These include:

(1) the probable veracity and basis of knowledge of the informant; (2) whether an informant's statements reflect first-hand knowledge; (3) whether some or all of the informant's factual statements were corroborated wherever reasonable and practicable; and (4) whether a law enforcement officer assessed, from his professional standpoint, experience, and expertise, the probable significance of the informant's information.

Id. Viewing the record as a whole, we have little difficulty in concluding that the authorities had probable cause to search the defendant's vehicle.

CD's information furnished a coherent tale: the defendant was not only the source of the oxycodone and Suboxone

that was found in...