United States v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 14 May 2013
• Docket Number: Criminal Action No. 2:12–00216.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Marcus Wyn TAYLOR.

963 F.Supp.2d 580

UNITED STATES of America

v.Marcus Wyn TAYLOR.

Criminal Action No. 2:12–00216.

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia.

May 14, 2013.

Joshua C. Hanks, U.S. Attorney's Office, Huntington, WV, for United States of America.

Rhett H. Johnson, Federal Public Defender's Office, Charleston, WV, for Marcus Wyn Taylor.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN T. COPENHAVER, JR., District Judge.

Pending are defendant Marcus Wyn Taylor's motion to suppress evidence, filed December 13, 2012, supplemental motion to suppress evidence, filed December 27, 2012, and second supplemental motion to suppress evidence, filed January 14, 2013.

On January 22 to January 24, 2013, the court held an evidentiary hearing attended by counsel for the parties and Mr. Taylor. On February 1, 2013, Mr. Taylor moved to file additional briefing and to supplement the record. On February 4, 2013, the court permitted the parties to file additional briefing respecting the mobile phone records at issue in the case, with the final brief arriving on February 15, 2013.

On February 26, 2013, after having not earlier received a substantive response from the United States respecting Mr. Taylor's February 6, 2013, brief, the United States was directed to file a substantive response on or before March 11, 2013, with any response from Mr. Taylor filed by March 18, 2013. On March 18, 2013, the final brief was received, and the court deemed the matter submitted.

On March 26, 2013, the Supreme Court entered its decision in Florida v. Jardines, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013), which, in combination with the recent decision in United States v. Jones, –––U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012), bore directly upon the issues under consideration in this action. The court noted that the United States had not responded to Mr. Taylor's earlier invocation of Jones. Accordingly, on April 3, 2013, the court directed the parties to submit cross briefs no later than April 12, 2013, respecting the application of both Jones and Jardines to this matter, with responses thereon filed no later than April 19, 2013. Those dates were extended, at the United States' request, to April 16, 2013, for cross briefs and April 21, 2013, for responses.

The court now enters its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I.

Detective Wes Daniels has worked for the Charleston Police Department for six-and-a-half years. During the early evening hours of October 24, 2012, however, he was engaged in a contract capacity for a private organization called FOCUS, an entity associated with the Charleston Housing Authority. He was accompanied by Corporal Owen Morris, a uniformed patrolman working in the same capacity as Detective Daniels and who has served the Charleston Police Department for approximately five-and-one-half years.

Both Detective Daniels and Corporal Morris are technically FOCUS employees in their moonlighting capacity, but continue to represent the Charleston Police Department. When necessary, they will display their badges and use their city-issued equipment, including their police cruiser. They are permitted to do so by the Charleston Police Department pursuant to a memorandum of understanding. In sum, they are authorized to act as law enforcement officers while on duty with FOCUS, including arrest and citation authority.

At approximately 6:00 p.m. Detective Daniels and Corporal Morris were driving their unmarked cruiser on McCormick Street in Washington Manor, a public housing project. They reached the intersection of McCormick Street and Joseph Street. When they halted at the intersection's stop sign, a brown Buick driven by Mr. Taylor attempted to turn left from Joseph Street onto McCormick Street.

He was traveling too fast given the narrowness of McCormick Street in the area where he was attempting the turn. His vehicle entered the cruiser's side of McCormick Street and, when it stopped, the officers were essentially looking face-to-face with Mr. Taylor. At least half of the Buick would have impacted the cruiser without an abrupt halt. Mr. Taylor applied his brakes to the point that the front of the vehicle bowed down and the back went upward. The Buick stopped somewhere between two feet and a few inches from the cruiser's bumper.

Detective Daniels noticed Mr. Taylor's eyes widened. He gave the officers a “deer-in-the-headlight[s] look, kind of a oh-my-gosh kind of surprised kind of look.” (Trans. at 17). Mr. Taylor reversed course and attempted to back up on Joseph Street. Detective Daniels recalled that children regularly played in the area and that several were on the sidewalk as the officers earlier drove down McCormick Street. Fearing Mr. Taylor's continued reckless driving, he activated the cruiser's blue signals, a thin light bar located inside the vehicle.

At 6:00 p.m., according to the Metro Emergency Operations Center (“Metro Communications”) Computer–Aided Dispatch Report (“CAD Report”), the officers called in to report that they were preparing to commence a traffic stop. ¹ At that point, Corporal Morris stated that he had an interest in Mr. Taylor before, believing he was “some kind of drug dealer or he suspected he was....” ( Id. at 18). Corporal Morris based that suspicion on the fact that he personally witnessed Mr. Taylor on several occasions sitting on his porch “at all hours of the day and night.” ( Id. at 132). He also noted the unusual level of comings and goings from Mr. Taylor's home.²

Detective Daniels approached the vehicle from the driver's side. Corporal Morris approached from the passenger side, stopping briefly to call the license plate information by radio to Metro Communications, which occurred at 6:02 p.m. according to Corporal Morris and the CAD Report. Detective Daniels identified himself as a Charleston Police Department detective. He explained to Mr. Taylor that he was stopped for reckless driving. Detective Daniels requested Mr. Taylor's driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Mr. Taylor engaged in three suspicious behaviors at this point.

First, he requested to speak with his lawyer. Detective Daniels has accomplished over 1,000 traffic stops during his career. He has “never had anybody on a traffic stop ask to speak to an attorney ... [a]nd I explained to him that there was no need to talk to a lawyer at this point.” (Trans. at 19). In denying the request, Detective Daniels was fearful, in part, of a ruse. He was concerned that Mr. Taylor could possibly attempt to contact confederates to come to the scene and create a dangerous situation. It is for this reason, as a matter of standard practice, that Detective Daniels does not permit stopped motorists to use their mobile phones, except in narrowly defined DUI cases.

Second, Mr. Taylor avoided eye contact with Detective Daniels, looking down and away. Third, Detective Daniels noticed that Mr. Taylor was breathing quite rapidly, as if he was exceptionally nervous. Unlike the generalized observations often made by law enforcement on such matters, Detective Daniels offered a benchmark. He said the rate of respiration was equivalent to what one would expect if Mr. Taylor had “just ran or something.” ( Id. at 19) (“He was just not acting normal for a normal person that you make a traffic stop on. He just seemed really nervous.”).

With Detective Daniels on the driver side of the Buick and Corporal Morris on the passenger side, Mr. Taylor opened his glove box. Corporal Morris immediately noticed two large stacks of cash therein.³ He bent down to attempt to get a better view. Mr. Taylor looked up at Corporal Morris at that point and started to close the glove box to halfway as if to hide from view something contained therein. He retrieved his proof of insurance and registration and handed it to Detective Daniels.

Corporal Morris immediately started snapping his fingers over the car to attract Detective Daniels' attention. Detective Daniels perceived this signal to suggest that he should have Mr. Taylor exit the vehicle based upon something suspicious that Corporal Morris had seen.

Mr. Taylor refused to step out when asked to do so by Detective Daniels. He reiterated his desire to speak with an attorney. He began dialing on his mobile phone while also reaching in and around the interior of the Buick. Detective Daniels again told Mr. Taylor there was no reason for an attorney to be called and stated that he “need[ed] to get out of the car and listen to” the instructions given him. ( Id. at 20 (“Nobody is in any trouble right now, I just need you to step out and speak with me so we can figure out what's going on.”)). Mr. Taylor was quite agitated and becoming angrier about not being permitted to call his lawyer. Mr. Taylor again refused to exit the vehicle.

Detective Daniels began to open the vehicle door to assist Mr. Taylor in exiting. At that point, Mr. Taylor began to comply and ultimately exited the Buick. Detective Daniels, Corporal Morris, and Mr. Taylor proceeded to the back of the vehicle. Detective Daniels then asked Mr. Taylor if he had anything that could harm the officers. Mr. Taylor admitted that he had a pocket or razor knife on him.

Detective Daniels then asked Mr. Taylor to turn and face the vehicle, at which time Detective Daniels prepared to perform a Terry protective frisk. As Detective Daniels commenced the pat down, however, Mr. Taylor “turned on [him] ... real fast” and was acting aggressively. ( Id. at 21). Detective Daniels stepped back, informed Mr. Taylor he would not be reaching into his pockets and told him that he just needed to pat Mr. Taylor down for weapons.

Given his lack of cooperation and aggressiveness, Detective Daniels was concerned that Mr. Taylor might have another undisclosed weapon on his person. He was handcuffed based upon (1) an officer/detainee safety concern, (2) his earlier rapid movement at the start of the Terry search, (3) his noncompliance with instructions, and (4) his...