United States v. Soza

• Decision Date: 24 February 2016
• Docket Number: 14–CR–3754 JAP
• Citation: 162 F.Supp.3d 1137
• Parties: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Bradley Soza, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

162 F.Supp.3d 1137

United States of America, Plaintiff,

v.Bradley Soza, Defendant.

14–CR–3754 JAP

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed February 24, 2016

Timothy S. Vasquez, US Attorney's Office, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.

Alonzo J. Padilla, Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

James A. Parker, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On October 27, 2015, Defendant Bradley Soza filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence and statements obtained as a result of his June 29, 2014 detention and arrest. See DEFENDANT BRADLEY SOZA'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF (Doc. No. 34). The United States opposes the motion. See UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS (Doc. No. 41) (Response). Having carefully considered the parties' arguments¹ and being advised as to the relevant law, the Court finds that Defendant's detention and subsequent arrest are constitutional. The Court will, therefore, deny Defendant's motion to suppress.

Procedural History

I. Defendant's Motion to Suppress

Defendant contends his June 29, 2014 detention doubly violated the Fourth Amendment. First, Defendant maintains that police arrested him without probable cause when they handcuffed him at gun-point following a nearby home invasion. Second, Defendant argues that the police unlawfully intruded onto Defendant's porch to conduct the detention without obtaining a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances. According to Defendant, either violation requires the suppression of the evidence derived from Defendant's detention and arrest.

II. Hearing Testimony

On December 15, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress. At this hearing, Timothy Vasquez represented the United States; Erlinda Johnson represented Defendant, who was present. During the first half of the hearing, Albuquerque Police Officer Thomas Melvin testified on behalf of the United States regarding Defendant's June 29, 2014 arrest. Officer Melvin explained that he and Officer James Demsich were investigating a break-in at a condominium complex when they detained Defendant, who was standing on the porch of a neighboring condominium. TRANSCRIPT OF DECEMBER 15, 2015 HEARING (Doc. No. 47 at 4:16–18, 5:25–6:4, 19:19, 22:2–4) (Hearing Transcript). While in the process of detaining Defendant, Officers Melvin and Demsich saw that Defendant had blood on his hands and glass on his clothes. Id. at 25:15–26:25. Believing they had probable cause to suspect Defendant of committing the nearby break-in, the Officers arrested Defendant, searched him, and found a loaded firearm. Id. at 29:10–15.

After hearing this description of the arrest, Defendant took the stand and refuted three key aspects of Officer Melvin's testimony. First, Defendant disagreed with Officer Melvin about his location at the time of the detention. Officer Melvin claimed Defendant was standing on the porch of Unit 1604 facing outwards and that the door to the Unit was closed and locked. Id. at 40:6–11, 41:6–10. Defendant, on the other hand, testified that he was opening the door to enter the condominium with his back to the Officers when the Officers approached him and ordered him to stop. Id. at 75:16–76:6. Second, according to Officer Melvin, he and Officer Demsich approached Defendant with guns drawn in the low and ready position. Id. at 22:2–3. By comparison, Defendant asserted that the Officers pointed their guns directly at his head during the initial detention. Id. at 75:23, 76:5–6, 77:5–7. Finally, at one point during his testimony, Officer Melvin stated that he was under the impression that Defendant shared his porch with the adjacent condominium. Id. at 39:11–17. Officer Melvin, however, later retreated from this position and acceded that the porch where Defendant was standing appeared to be private. Id. at 51:22–24, 68:1–3. To dispel any remaining doubt, Defendant clarified that the porch where he was standing belonged to him alone. Id. at 72:19–20, 73:5–6. Aside from these areas of disagreement (or potential disagreement), Defendant otherwise verified that Officer Melvin's basic outline of events was true. See generally id. Additionally, Defendant provided information about his ownership and use of the porch. Defendant stated that he owned the condominium and used the porch to smoke cigarettes and to eat outside. Id. at 72:5–73:3.

Factual Findings

As a general matter, the Court found Officer Melvin to be a more credible witness than Defendant Bradley Soza. With the exception of some minor confusion about the layout of the porch and the exact physical location of the suspect, Officer Melvin testified cogently and thoroughly about the events of June 29, 2014. Although Defendant's testimony was also coherent and internally consistent, Defendant was, at times, less than forthright. Most notably, on cross examination, Defendant denied that there was blood on his hands at the time of the detention. Id. at 83:6–19. The Court did not find this believable. Officer Melvin testified that he and Officer Demsich saw blood on Defendant's hands. Id. at 23:21–24:5. Photographs of Defendant from the day of the arrest corroborate Officer Melvin's testimony. Government's Hearing Exhibits 3–4. Defendant did not object to the authenticity of these photographs and did not provide any other explanation for how blood came to be on his hands in the photographs if his hands were not bloodied at the time of the detention. Considering this discrepancy, the testimony as a whole, and the demeanor of both witnesses, the Court was persuaded that Officer Melvin was more reliable about the events surrounding the arrest. Consequently, although the Court credits Defendant's largely undisputed testimony about his home ownership and use of his porch, where Officer Melvin's testimony and Defendant's testimony contradict, the Court will adopt Officer Melvin's version of events.

In accordance with this credibility determination, the Court makes the following findings of fact under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(d).

I. Defendant's Home

1. As of June 29, 2014, Defendant Bradley Soza resided at and owned Unit 1604 of the Villas Condominium Complex, 601 Menaul NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Hearing Transcript at 72:5–11. Defendant's ownership extended to a private front porch, which Defendant did not share with any other condominium or condominium owner. Id. at 72:19–20, 89:4–6.

2. Defendant's Hearing Exhibit C is an accurate picture of Defendant's front porch. Id. at 72:16–18.

3. Defendant used his porch to sit with family, drink, eat meals, and smoke cigarettes. Id. at 39:7–10, 72:24–73:3.

4. Consistent with this usage, Defendant kept furniture – chairs and a small table – on the porch. Id. at 39:18–20.

5. The Villas Condominium Complex is a gated community, id. at 73:73:20, which is typically very quiet without many people around, id. at 22:23–23:3.

II. Events of June 29, 2014

6. At 12:51 p.m. on June 29, 2014, the Albuquerque Police Department received a call via 911 regarding a burglary in progress at the Villas Condominium Complex. Id. at 6:21–25; see also Government's Hearing Exhibit 7.

7. Roughly two minutes later, Officer Melvin and Officer Demsich were dispatched to investigate the call. Hearing Transcript at 7:2–10.

8. As they drove their cars to the scene, arrived at the scene, and began investigating the premises, Officers Melvin and Demsich received additional information from the dispatcher about the nature of the crime. Specifically, the Officers learned that (1) the women who called 911 were inside condominium 1405 when they saw a man banging on the front door, (2) this man walked around behind their condominium and gained entry by throwing a rock and breaking a sliding glass door, (3) the residents were hiding in a closet and heard the intruder say “hey” outside the bedroom door. Id. at 8:16–21, 9:1–3, 9:8–21, 10:13–14, 11:11–13, 31:12–16.

9. The 911–callers described the intruder as a Spanish male, in his forties, wearing a baseball cap, a grey shirt, and pants of an unknown color. Government's Hearing Exhibit 7.

10. Officer Demsich arrived at the Villas Condominium Complex at 1:00 p.m., and after a brief miscommunication about the correct unit number, located the condominium belonging to the callers, which was housed in Building 14. Hearing Transcript at 9:34, 10:10–14.

11. Officer Melvin arrived at the scene of the crime at 1:03 p.m. Id. at 10:15–17.

12. To clear the area, Officers Demsich and Melvin walked in opposite directions around Building 14. Officer Demsich walked around the east side of the building, while Officer Melvin walked around the west side. Id. at 10:25–11:8.

13. As he was walking around the north corner of the building, Officer Demsich saw a man coming from Building 16 across the street. Officer Demsich told this man “to go back in,” meaning to return to his home. Id. at 36:16–17; 37:23–38:1, 37:20–22. The man complied, turning around and walking away. The man did not run or make any furtive or suspicious movements. Id. at 48:6–11.

14. Officer Demsich continued on his circuit of the building and shortly thereafter (around 1:09 p.m.) crossed paths with Officer Melvin near the broken sliding glass door that had been reported by the 911–callers. Id. at 17:6–10, 38:7–8. Officer Demsich asked Officer Melvin whether he had seen the man coming from Building 16. Officer Melvin said “no.” Officer Demsich indicated that he believed the man matched the suspect description and asked if Officer Melvin thought this man might be involved in the crime. The Officers decided to investigate. Id. at 13:21–14:3.

15. Officers Melvin and Demsich immediately crossed the street and approached Building 16. Id. at 14:2–3. While the Officers were walking through the common area of the condominium complex, they saw Defendant Bradley Soza standing on the front porch to Unit 1604. Id. at 19:20–24. Defendant was standing on

...