United States v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 09 December 2022
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL 1:22-cr-77-TBM-RPM
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BRADFORD THOMPSON, Jr.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BRADFORD THOMPSON, Jr.

CRIMINAL No. 1:22-cr-77-TBM-RPM

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

December 9, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

TAYLOR B. MCNEEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A confidential informant informed the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics that Bradford Thompson, Jr. was a large-scale drug dealer, and the informant said he had personally observed, on several occasions, large quantities of heroin, marijuana, and bulk currency at Thompson's home. Law enforcement officers stopped Thompson after he was observed driving in a careless manner and failing to use a signal. Officers detected the smell of marijuana coming from his vehicle during the stop and discovered marijuana in his possession. Then, Thompson's home was searched pursuant to a search warrant where officers discovered large amounts of fentanyl, cocaine, and marijuana. Law enforcement officers arrested Thompson and he admitted to distributing the substances.

Thompson requests the Court suppress evidence of all of the drugs discovered during the search. Thompson alleges that this evidence should not be admissible because the stop was pretextual and the affidavit used to secure the warrant to search his home was based off an unreliable and untrustworthy confidential informant's stale information and therefore the affidavit is “bare bones.” The Court disagrees. The stop was valid and the information in the affidavit was adequate because under the totality of the circumstances the affidavit provided a sufficient indicia

1

of probable cause to support the search of Thompson's home. The Motion [27] to Suppress is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 9, 2022, a Jackson County Court Judge signed a warrant authorizing officers to search Bradford Thompson, Jr.'s residence for drugs.^[1] [27-2], pg. 5. The search warrant was based on an affidavit sworn to by Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force Officer Rob Drace. Id. According to the affidavit, in April of 2022, officers received information from a “credible and reliable” confidential informant that on several occasions the informant “observed large quantities of heroin, marijuana and bulk currency inside the residence.” Id. “The confidential source further related that [Thompson] is known to distribute multiple ounce size quantities of heroin and pound quantities of marijuana to various individuals in Harrison and Jackson County.” Id.

Based on this information, agents of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics conducted surveillance on Thompson's residence and “observed a red GMC Sonoma” that was consistent with the confidential informant's identification of such vehicle. Id. “Agents initiated surveillance on the vehicle as it made many stops after leaving the residence at open and closed business[es], in a short distance, before returning to the residence.” Id. “[A]gents identified this behavior as a ‘heat run'.... utilized to identify tailing vehicles as in this case, law enforcement officers.” Id. Officer Drace observed “this same driving behavior” on multiple occasions. Id.

On May 9, 2022, agents saw the red GMC Sonoma depart from the home. Id. “Agents followed the vehicle as it proceeded onto the on ramp to Interstate 10 West and was observed

2

driving in a careless manner, failing to signal and failing to maintain its lane of travel.” Id. A traffic stop was conducted and Officer Drace and Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics Captain Sullivan “smelled an immense and distinct odor of marijuana emitting from within the vehicle.” Id. During the stop, Thompson gave “false information about his departure location and destination” and he possessed “an iPhone and an older flip style phone, often utilized in drug distribution to thwart detection and tracking.” Id. Thompson also admitted to the use and possession of marijuana, which ultimately resulted in a search of his vehicle. Id. Officers discovered a marijuana cigarette in the vehicle and concluded the totality of the above facts supported a search warrant for Thompson's home. Id. at 4.

Based on this information, the judge signed the search warrant on May 9, 2022. Id. at 5. During the search, officers discovered “over 1,000 grams of a substance that field tested positive for fentanyl, over 500 grams of substance that field tested positive for cocaine, approximately 2 pounds of suspected marijuana, over $30,000 cash, a Smith & Wesson, MP40 handgun, with a round of ammunition in the chamber and 14 rounds of ammunition in the magazine.” [28], pg. 4. “Thompson subsequently admitted to officers that he was in fact distributing the substances located in his home.” Id.

On June 7, 2022, Thompson was indicted for possession with the intent to distribute both fentanyl and cocaine. Thompson now argues that the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant and any statements obtained by officers are “fruit of the poisonous tree because it was obtained in violation of Mr. Thompson's constitutionally protected right to be free from illegal search and seizure.” Id. at 5.

3

II. DISCUSSION

The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and further requires that all warrants be supported by probable cause. See U.S. Const. amend. IV. “Evidence collected in violation of that requirement is typically subject to the exclusionary rule and may be suppressed to deter future law enforcement misconduct.” United States v. Bell, 832 Fed.Appx. 298, 300-01 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Ganzer, 922 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 2019).^[2] Application of the exclusionary rule is not automatic, however. When law enforcement officers seize evidence through objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant, the Fourth Amendment does not require that courts suppress the evidence. United States v. Huerra, 884 F.3d 511, 515 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984)). This principle is the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Huerra, 884 F.3d at 515.

In considering a motion to suppress, the Court engages in a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies and (2) whether the warrant was supported by probable cause. United States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1311 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Leon, 486 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405). “Principles of judicial restraint and precedent dictate that, in most cases, [the Court] should not reach the probable cause issue if a decision on the admissibility

4

of the evidence under the good-faith exception of Leon will resolve the matter.” United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 1988).

In seeking suppression, Thompson argues the following: (1) the stop was pretextual; (2) the warrant's affidavit was “bare bones” and “lacked any indicia of probable cause” that belief in the existence of probable cause was entirely unreasonable; and (3) the information from the confidential informant was stale. [27].

1. Whether the Traffic Stop Was Constitutional

Thompson contends that the stop was pretextual and “the proper inquiry is whether a reasonable officer would have made the seizure in the absence of illegitimate motivation.” [27], pg. 14. But this is the wrong inquiry because, “ [i]n 1996, the Supreme Court approved the use of...