United States v. Sparks
| Decision Date | 19 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Action No. 21-477 (RC) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Bryan SPARKS, Defendant, Autumn Gail Luna, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
James B. Nelson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for United States of America.
Eugene Jeen-Young Kim Ohm, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant Bryan Sparks.
John L. Machado, Law Office of John Machado, Washington, DC, for Defendant Autumn Gail Luna.
GRANTING DEFENDANT SPARKS'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS; GRANTING DEFENDANT LUNA'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS; GRANTING DEFENDANT LUNA'S MOTION TO ADOPT; GRANTING DEFENDANT SPARKS'S MOTION TO FILE A REPLY
Co-defendants Bryan Sparks and Autumn Luna were traveling cross-country from Washington state to Florida by Amtrak when they passed through Washington, D.C. on June 22, 2021. They were stopped on the platform at Union Station by Amtrak Police Officer Brandt Bartman and his K9 dog, Koda, for a ticket check and then a canine sniff. When Koda alerted on Luna's purse, both defendants were handcuffed and taken to the Amtrak police substation. A subsequent search of their luggage and the statements they made lead to the present narcotics and controlled substance charges against them. Both defendants now seek to suppress those statements and that evidence on basis that the initial search and seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motions.
At the time of their arrest, Sparks and Luna were in the middle of a trip from Washington to Florida, where Sparks's father was undergoing chemotherapy treatment. See United States’ Resp. in Opp'n Def.’s Mot. Suppress ("Gov't 1st Opp'n") at 2, ECF No. 18; Mot. Suppress Statements & Supp. Mot. Suppress Tangible Evidence & Statements ( ) at 1, ECF No. 25. After a brief layover at Union Station on June 22, 2022, they were escorted from the lounge to their train by an Amtrak employee, see Defs.’ Suppr. Mot. at 2; Tr. Dec. 2, 2021 Mot. Hearing ("12/2/21 Tr.") at 78:8–12, 79:8–13, ECF No. 34, who brought them nearly to the sleeper car and gestured to the entrance, id. at 88:7–12. That employee testified that Sparks and Luna acted normally and followed his instructions. Id. at 87:19–88:1. His testimony was consistent with the surveillance footage, which shows Sparks and Luna walking behind the employee until nearly the entrance of the sleeper car. See Def. Sparks Ex. 1 at 3:02–55.
Amtrak Police Officer Bartman was patrolling the platform at that time with Officer Fales. United States’ Opp'n Def.’s Mot. Suppress Statements and Suppl. Mot. Suppress Evidence ("Gov't 2d Opp'n") at 2, ECF No. 29. Both were in full uniform and accompanied by Koda, a canine trained to sniff for narcotics. Id. ; 12/2/21 Tr. at 11:14–15, 16:23–25. Officer Bartman testified that Sparks and Luna were on the platform too early and that passengers were still disembarking. Id. at 17:2–7. He claimed that he did not see the Amtrak employee escorting Sparks and Luna despite looking for one, id. at 42:17–21, and despite acknowledging that the surveillance footage showed the usher as being only about "six feet" away from him, id. at 65:1–20; see also Tr. Dec. 14, 2021 Mot. Hearing ("12/14/21 Tr.") at 65:6–10, ECF No. 35 (acknowledging that the footage shows the employee gesturing to the sleeper cars was "maybe a few feet" away from Officer Bartman). Officer Bartman approached Sparks and Luna and asked to see their tickets and ID. 12/2/21 Tr. at 17:5–7. Luna initially kept walking, but Officer Bartman "call[ed] her back" to conduct the ticket check. 12/14/21 Tr. at 66:3–5, 66:20–67:2. Sparks first produced the bar code that Amtrak employees would use to scan the tickets, then produced the full pdf ticket upon Officer Bartman's request, and both individuals provided their identification. 12/2/21 Tr. at 45:15–46:25, 48:23–49:6.
Next, Officer Bartman allegedly asked Sparks and Luna whether they were carrying contraband such as drugs, bombs, or large sums of money, id. at 18:5–12; 49:21–50:4; 52:15–18, and they stated that they were not, 12/14/21 Tr. at 85:1–4. Officer Bartman then instructed them to place their bags on the ground for a canine sniff. Id. at 86:8–10; see also 12/2/21 Tr. at 18:3–4. They complied, and the body worn camera footage shows Koda sniffing the luggage and alerting on the purse that had been in Luna's possession. 12/14/21 Tr. at 5:9–6:21; Gov't Ex. 2A at 00:12–43. Following Koda's alert on the purse, Officer Bartman placed Luna in handcuffs and at the same time directed his partner to handcuff Sparks. 12/14/21 Tr. at 7:8–14; Gov't Ex. 2B at 00:26–45. After she was handcuffed and was told that she "may or may not get arrested" "depending on what it is," Luna stated that she had "a pipe" and "maybe a gram of coke" in her purse and asked whether that would get her arrested. Gov't Ex. 2B at 2:04–57. The timing of that statement as shown on the video and acknowledged by Officer Bartman in his testimony before this Court contradicted both Officer Bartman's affidavit and grand jury testimony in this case, where he claimed that Luna had made the statement before he handcuffed her. 12/14/21 Tr. at 76:14–80:11.
While both defendants were handcuffed on the platform, Officer Bartman again directed Koda to sniff the luggage, including moving some of the objects to allow her to smell better. 12/2/21 Tr. at 23:20–24:5; 12/14/21 Tr. at 9:11–14:23; Gov't Ex. 2C at 00:17–1:08. Koda then alerted on a jacket that Sparks had been carrying and which Luna immediately identified as hers. 12/2/21 Tr. at 24:6–15; 12/14/21 Tr. at 15:13–17:7. The officers then took both defendants and the luggage to the Amtrak Police Office in Union Station, where they were put in separate rooms. 12/2/21 Tr. at 24:16–25:20.
Officer Bartman read Sparks his Miranda rights and asked him whether he wished to waive his rights and speak with them.1 Id. at 27:2–28:8. Sparks initially asked if there was any way he could go see his father—explaining that his father was undergoing chemotherapy and Sparks was on his way to visit him. 12/14/21 Tr. at 26:17–28:5; Gov't Ex. 2D at 00:45–56. Officer Bartman insisted that Sparks give a yes-or-no answer regarding the Miranda waiver following another question from Sparks about whether it would help him get to see his father. 12/14/21 Tr. at 28: 3–5. Sparks then said "OK, yes," after which Officer Bartman added, See Gov't 2d Opp'n at 7 (quoting the conversation). Sparks was subsequently asked for and gave consent to search his luggage, which he identified. 12/2/21 Tr. at 31:18–32:7; Gov't 2d Opp'n at 8–9. The search of Sparks's bags uncovered the tangible evidence that he now seeks to suppress. Id. at 9.
Defendant Sparks's first motion to suppress tangible evidence and statements in this case was followed by a second, more developed, motion. See Mot. Suppress Tangible Evidence & Statements & Mem. P. & A. Supp. Thereof, ECF No. 17; Defs.’ Suppr. Mot. Both motions were joined by Defendant Luna, see Min. Order of Oct. 13, 2021 (granting leave to Luna to join Sparks’ arguments), and Luna filed a separate related motion to suppress, see Autumn Luna's Mot. Suppress Evidence & Statements ( ), ECF No. 30. This Court held a two-day hearing on the motions at which it heard testimony from Officer Bartman and a civilian Amtrak employee. See 12/2/21 Tr.; 12/14/21 Tr. At the Court's request, the parties filed supplemental briefing following those hearings.2 See Suppl. Bryan Sparks’ Mot. Suppress ( ), ECF No. 36; United States’ Opp'n Def.’s Suppl. Mot. Suppress Evidence ( ), ECF No. 38; Def.’s Reply to Resp. to Suppl. Bryan Sparks's Mot. Suppress (" "), ECF No. 40. In response to an inquiry from the Court, the parties submitted further briefs on the issue of seizure. See Def. Bryan Sparks’ Resp. to Court's Min. Order ("Sparks Resp."), ECF No. 42; United States’ Suppl. Br. ("Gov't 1st Resp."), ECF No. 43; Resp. to Court's Min. Order ("Luna Resp."), ECF No. 45; United States’ Suppl. Br. ("Gov't 2d Resp."), ECF No. 46. The matter is now thoroughly briefed and ripe for resolution.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. Violations of this guarantee are generally subject to the exclusionary rule, which requires courts to suppress evidence obtained through unconstitutional means. See, e.g. , United States v. Weaver , 808 F.3d 26, 33 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) ; Weeks v. United States , 232 U.S. 383, 398, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914) ). This exclusion of evidence includes both "the primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure and ... evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality, the so-called fruit of the poisonous tree." Utah v. Strieff , 579 U.S. 232, 237, 136 S.Ct. 2056, 195 L.Ed.2d 400 (2016) (internal quotations omitted).
The defendant bears the threshold "burden of proving whether and when the Fourth Amendment was implicated." United States v. Carhee , 27 F.3d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir. 1994) ; see also United States v. Delaney , 955 F.3d 1077, 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2020) . If a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurred without a warrant, "the burden is on the government to demonstrate that its conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial