United States v. Watkins
| Decision Date | 22 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-20034 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ERRIC DEVOHN WATKINS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
On January 23, 2014, a Grand Jury charged Erric Devohn Watkins with five counts, including: possession with intent to distribute a substance containing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession with intent to distribute a substance containing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); maintaining a drug premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1); felon in possession of a firearm—armed career criminal in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e); and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The indictment also alleged criminal forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). (Dkt. # 7, Pg. ID 16-22.)
Now before the court are three motions to suppress evidence filed by Watkins: (1) Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and to Suppress Evidence Seized During Warrantless Stop (Dkt. # 20), (2) Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized During the Execution of an Invalid Search Warrant, or Alternatively, Motion for an EvidentiaryHearing Pursuant to Delaware v. Franks (Dkt. # 21), and (3) Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized on Additional Grounds and for Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt. # 32).
In his first motion, Watkins requests that the court suppress the evidence seized during his January 13, 2014 arrest and the statements made subsequent to the arrest on the grounds that: (1) the arrest was not based on probable cause, (2) the arresting officers failed to comply with Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.13, (3) the arresting officers had an opportunity to obtain an arrest warrant but did not, and (4) the arresting officers conducted the arrest outside of their jurisdiction. In his latter two motions, Watkins seeks to suppress the evidence seized during the January 13, 2014 search of the property located at 16615 Rossini Drive, Wayne County, on the grounds that: (1) the judge issued the search warrant based on false information contained in the affidavit, (2) the affidavit lacks sufficient information about the confidential informant, (3) there is no nexus between the property search and the evidence sought, (4) the information contained in the affidavit was stale, and (5) the officers engaged in improper forum shopping by seeking the search warrant from a court in Macomb County.1
On January 29, 2015, the court held an evidentiary hearing as to the Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and to Suppress Evidence Seized During Warrantless Stop (Dkt. # 20) to determine (1) whether the officers acted beyond their statutory authority in arresting Watkins, and, if so, (2) whether the extraterritorial arrest violated the FourthAmendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Dkt. # 37.) For the reasons stated on the record and discussed below, the court will deny Watkins's three motions to suppress evidence. (Dkt. ## 20, 21, 32).
On January 13, 2014, Macomb County Detective Daryn Santini submitted an affidavit to Judge Carl Gerds of the 38th District of Michigan and obtained a search warrant for the property located at 16615 Rossini Drive in the City of Detroit and County of Wayne. (Dkt. # 24-2, Pg. ID 147.) Detective Daryn Santini stated in the affidavit that he "received information from an anonymous source that Watkins was selling heroin out of his residence at 16615 Rossini in the City of Detroit." (Dkt. # 24-2, Pg. ID 149.) Detective Santini also stated that he began surveying the Rossini property on December 16, 2013. (Id.) On that date, he observed Watkins exit the property three times, "meet up with a vehicle," engage in "what appeared to be a hand to hand transaction," and then return to the property. (Id.) Likewise, the affidavit states that Detective Santini observed Watkins exit the Rossini property in the early afternoon of December 18, 2013 and that Detective Santini lost sight of him after Watkins turned north on "Shakespeare." (Id. at 150.)
According to the affidavit, on January 5, 2014, a confidential informant told Detective Santini that he/she "could buy heroin from Watkins from his home at 16615 Rossini, Detroit." (Id. at 150.) Detective Santini organized a controlled buy in which the confidential informant exchanged with Watkins money for heroin. (Id.) The affidavit also states that Detective Santini organized a second controlled buy between the confidential informant and Watkins in which Watkins sold the confidential informant asubstance that tested "with a strong positive reaction for heroin." (Id.) The government claims that it obtained the search warrant at around 10:00 am on January 12, 2014, but the warrant is dated "1/13/14 NOON." (Id. at 147.)
At approximately 11:00 am on January 13, 2014, Detective Santini and other detectives from the Macomb County Sheriff's Office began conducting surveillance of Watkins's Rossini property. (Dkt. # 20, Pg. ID 77.) At around 1:30 pm, Watkins drove from the Rossini property several blocks to the parking lot of a bar and entered the bar. (Dkt. # 20, Pg. ID 78.) According to Detective Santini's testimony, Watkins crossed into Macomb County's jurisdiction during a portion of his drive to the bar, which was located in Wayne County. The affidavit states that Detective Santini confirmed that the subject driving the vehicle was Watkins and that Watkins was driving with a suspended license. (Dkt. # 23, Pg. ID 117.) At 2:30 pm, Watkins exited the bar, and officers accompanying Detective Santini arrested Watkins without an arrest warrant. (Dkt. # 20, Pg. ID 78.) The officers seized from Watkins a wallet, four cell phones, and $4,150. (Id.)
According to Watkins, the officers then drove him to a Home Depot parking lot, waited for a period of time, and then took Watkins to the Rossini property where they executed the search warrant. (Dkt. # 20, Pg. ID 78.) During the execution of the search warrant, the detectives seized, inter alia, a firearm, cocaine, heroin, drug paraphernalia, and eight cell phones. (Dkt. # 24, Pg. ID 127-37; Dkt. # 24-2, Pg. ID 151-51.) Later that day, Watkins made a statement to the officers which Watkins describes as "a somewhat inculpatory statement regarding his presence at 16615 Rossini. (Dkt. # 20, Pg. ID 79.)
The Fourth Amendment guarantees that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. For a warrantless arrest by law enforcement to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, there must be "probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed." Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004). "The burden of showing probable cause to make a warrantless arrest is on the government." United States v. Porter, 701 F.2d 1158, 1165 (6th Cir. 1983).
Probable cause "means facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed is committing, or is about to commit an offense." Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37 (1979); Hinchman v. Moore, 312 F.3d 198, 204 (6th Cir. 2002) (). "Whether probable cause exists depends upon the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest." Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 152. "There is no precise formula for determining the existence or nonexistence of probable cause; rather, a reviewing court is to take into account the 'factual and practical considerations of everyday life' that would lead a reasonable person to determine that there is a reasonable probability that illegality has occurred or is about to occur." United States v.Strickland, 144 F.3d 412, 415 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231 (1983). Probable cause requires "more than mere suspicion," and the arresting officers must be able "to articulate concrete facts from which they infer a probability that illegality has occurred." Id. However, "the probable cause requirement does not require that [the officers] possess evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case at trial, much less evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.
1. Probable Cause for the Arrest
Detective Santini had probable cause at the time of Watkins's arrest to believe that Watkins had been driving with a suspended license in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.904 et seq. Detective Santini stated in his January 13, 2014 report that he observed Watkins drive his vehicle from the Rossini property to the bar and that he was aware Watkins had a suspended license. (Dkt. # 23, Pg. ID 117.) In United States v. Campbell, 486 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 2007), the Sixth Circuit held that a warrantless arrest did not violate a person's constitutional rights when the arresting officer "had probable cause to believe that [the arrestee] had committed the misdemeanor offense of driving without proof of license." Id. at 958; see also Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 352 (2001) ().
Watkins suggests that the justification for his arrest "appears to be that they picked [him] up . . . en route to the execution of...
To continue reading
Request your trial