United States v. Tucker

Decision Date03 September 2021
Docket NumberNo. 19-3042,C/w 19-3043, 19-3078,19-3042
Citation12 F.4th 804
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Lonnell TUCKER, Appellant
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Paul S. Rosenzweig, appointed by the court, argued the cause for appellant Anthony Fields. Amelia Schmidt, appointed by the court, argued the cause for appellant Abdul Samuels. With her on the briefs was Matthew G. Kaiser, appointed by the court. Stephen C. Leckar, appointed by the court, argued the cause for appellant Lonnell Tucker.

Daniel J. Lenerz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Elizabeth Trosman, Chrisellen R. Kolb, and Gregory P. Rosen, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

Before: Katsas, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

Appellants Anthony Fields, Abdul Samuels, and Lonnell Tucker were convicted on several drug- and firearm-related offenses. Each appellant challenges his convictions, and Samuels also challenges his sentence. We affirm.

I

In May 2018, a grand jury indicted Fields, Samuels, Tucker, and three other individuals on several charges related to an alleged drug-dealing conspiracy. The indictment stemmed from an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) of drug activity at Next Level Cuts, a barbershop in the District of Columbia.

Much of the government's evidence came from searches in the months preceding the indictment. During a traffic stop in November 2017, officers found what appeared to be a drug ledger, approximately $9,000, and drug paraphernalia in Fields's vehicle. The ATF executed a search warrant on the barbershop three months later. In a suite above the barbershop, agents found cash, firearms, more drug paraphernalia, and large quantities of narcotics — heroin mixed with fentanyl, PCP, Suboxone

, and synthetic marijuana. In the same room, they also found a document listing a medical appointment for Fields and a receipt for a purchase made with his credit card. A search of Fields's home led to more drug ledgers, two of which listed "Foots" (i.e. , Samuels). During the ensuing searches of Samuels's home, ATF agents found a shotgun, drug paraphernalia, crack cocaine, marijuana, and synthetic marijuana. During the search, Samuels admitted that he kept the gun under his bed for protection.

Also central to the government's case was testimony from Byran Clark, a drug dealer who purportedly worked for Fields. Clark testified that Fields ran a drug operation out of the barbershop's upstairs suite and that Samuels often acted as a gatekeeper to the suite. He also reported that Tucker sold drugs out of the barbershop and frequented the suite.

Five defendants proceeded to trial. One pleaded guilty during the trial. The jury returned a mixed verdict as to the other four. It acquitted one defendant on the sole charge against him. It also acquitted Fields and Samuels on several firearms- and narcotics-related charges. But it found Fields, Samuels, and Tucker guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute various narcotics. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846.1 It also found Fields guilty of possessing with intent to distribute each of the narcotics alleged in the conspiracy. Id. § 841(a). And it found Samuels guilty of possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, id. , of possessing synthetic marijuana, id. § 844, and of felony possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

The district court sentenced Fields to 192 months of imprisonment, Samuels to 84 months of imprisonment, and Tucker to 60 months of imprisonment. All three appealed and collectively raise eight claims. We address each claim in turn.

II

We start with Fields, who contends that the police officers who searched him and his vehicle in November 2017 lacked a sufficient basis to conduct their traffic stop, violating the Fourth Amendment. Prior to the search, officers conducting undercover surveillance on a store known to sell drug paraphernalia witnessed Fields exit the store. The officers followed him. Fields drove to a nearby parking lot where another person entered Fields's car and then left after less than two minutes. Suspecting a drug sale and wanting to remain undercover, the officers called for backup and followed Fields to another nearby parking lot.

When backup officers arrived, they observed Fields illegally speed through that parking lot and then park. They momentarily observed Fields before they approached him and asked for his driver's license and registration. "Due to his nervous behavior and furtive movements," they then asked Fields to step out of his car and keep his hands away from his pockets. App. 145.

Contrary to the instruction, Fields made "constant furtive movements towards his pockets." Id. So the backup officers conducted a pat down, during which Fields spontaneously uttered "that white powder in my pocket is a supplement." Id. The "white powder" was Mannitol, a known cutting agent for cocaine. Id. at 146.

The backup officers also found $2,000 in cash and a ledger on Fields. Inside his car, a K-9 found another $7,001 in cash and multiple bottles with concealed "false bottoms containing trace amounts of white powder." Id. Fields was subsequently arrested.

Months later, in February 2018, ATF agents applied for a search warrant of Fields's car and the barbershop, which was suspected of being a stash house. The 18-page application included a paragraph about the November 2017 stop. After a court granted the search warrant, ATF agents found additional evidence of Fields's drug trafficking.

Before trial, Fields challenged the legality of the vehicular stop and search warrant. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the stop. Sergeant Chaney (one of the two undercover officers) and Officer Haskett (one of the backup officers) both testified. The court found their testimony credible, concluded that there was probable cause to stop Fields, and denied Fields's suppression motion. The court also denied Fields's motion to suppress evidence from the February 2018 search.

As to the November 2017 stop, Fields challenges the court's findings that (1) the officers were credible, and (2) there was probable cause for the stop. In addition, he disputes the district court's rejection of his argument regarding the 2018 search, and he now adds an argument not raised in the district court — that the evidence from the February 2018 search warrant should be suppressed as poisonous fruit of the allegedly unlawful November 2017 stop.

A

As for the officers’ credibility, we review the district court's findings for clear error. United States v. Delaney , 955 F.3d 1077, 1081–82 (D.C. Cir. 2020). And we reverse "when a district court credits exceedingly improbable testimony ." United States v. Delaney , 651 F.3d 15, 18 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

Fields offers three reasons for reversal.

First, he argues that because Officer Haskett did not immediately stop him or take the necessary steps to cite him for speeding, no speeding actually occurred. But that conclusion does not follow from those facts. Officer Haskett was taking steps to cite Fields for speeding until he discovered evidence of a more serious crime — Fields's drug trafficking. It is therefore understandable the stop did not end how it began.

Second, Fields makes much of Sergeant Chaney's statement that he could not recall "[i]f there were any obvious reasons for the stop." App. 118. What Chaney actually said, when asked if he could recall "[i]f there were any obvious reasons for stop," was: "I believe there were, but off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you what it was. Id. But in any event, Sergeant Chaney was not even the officer who conducted the stop. Cause for the stop here depends on what was seen by Officer Haskett. And he recalled that Fields was speeding.

Third, Fields argues that Officer Haskett's testimony that Fields "was going a little fast," id. at 133, is inconsistent with his written report that Fields was "traveling at a high rate of speed through the parking lot" and that officers approached Fields to confront him "about speeding through the parking lot," id. at 145.

That argument, however, distorts Officer Haskett's testimony, which included at least five statements about Fields's driving:

(1) "I saw a silver Range Rover speeding through the parking lot";
(2) Fields "was going a little fast for people to — for [him] to react to people walking across the road "; (3) "I already had probable cause to stop the vehicle because of speeding ";
(4) "I don't know the exact speed limit, but I do know that he was driving faster than he should if people are walking with their children and families shopping"; and
(5) Fields's "[s ]peed [was] greater than reasonable ."

Hr'g Tr. 9, 11, 31, ECF No. 246 (emphases added).

Contrary to Fields's argument, there is no genuine inconsistency between the written report and the totality of Officer Haskett's testimony. One can imagine a case where it might matter whether a defendant was barely speeding or dangerously speeding. But this is not that case. All that matters is that Fields committed a traffic violation.

The district court did not err in finding the officers’ testimony credible. And we, like the district court, rely on it for the next part of our analysis.

B

We review the district court's determination that there was a legal basis for the stop de novo . See Delaney , 955 F.3d at 1081–82.

Because Officer Haskett observed Fields speeding, he had probable cause for the stop. It is well settled that a traffic stop "is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred." Whren v. United States , 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) ; see also United States v. Sheffield , 832 F.3d 296, 302 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Whren , 517 U.S. at 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769 ).2

We will not consider Fields's argument that the speeding was merely a pretextual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • United States v. Abukhatallah
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 26 July 2022
    ...definition of the United States’ special jurisdiction. Khatallah's challenge "faces a high threshold." United States v. Tucker , 12 F.4th 804, 826 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (cleaned up). The question is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,......
  • Broidy Capital Mgmt. LLC v. Muzin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 3 September 2021
  • Broidy Capital Mgmt. v. Muzin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 2 June 2022
    ... ... NICOLAS D. MUZIN et al., Defendants. No. 19-cv-150 (DLF) United States District Court, District of Columbia June 2, 2022 ...           ... ...
  • United States v. McCaughey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 20 May 2022
    ...S.Ct. 933. But as the Rule's permissive language suggests, "severance is not required even if prejudice is shown." United States v. Tucker , 12 F.4th 804, 825 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The tailoring of appropriate relief is instead left "to the district court's sound discretion." Zafir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT