United States v. Williams
| Decision Date | 09 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | 1:12-cr-00264-1,1:12-cr-00264-2 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CHARLES WILLIAMS, JR., and ELISABETH MACMULLEN |
Defendants Charles Williams, Jr. ("Williams"), and Elisabeth MacMullen ("MacMullen") (collectively "Defendants") are charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). This matter was initially before the court on Defendants' motions to suppress the cocaine and all other evidence seized from, and statements made by, them as a result of a February 13, 2012, search of their automobile on Interstate 85 in Lexington, North Carolina. (Docs. 19, 20.) An initial hearing was held on November 20, 2012 ("initial hearing"), and the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants' motions (Doc. 27, denying Docs. 19 & 20).
On the morning of trial, March 11, 2013, Defendants moved the trial judge to reconsider this court's prior ruling in light of new evidence produced by the Government; namely, a DVDrecording from a camera in the patrol car of a deputy involved in the traffic stop of Defendants (Doc. 44). Defendants contended, among other things, that one of the reasons relied upon by the court in denying the motions to suppress was contradicted by the new evidence, which Defendants assert casts doubt on the credibility of the deputies who testified. The matter was returned to this court, which agreed to reconsider the motions and held a second evidentiary hearing on March 21, 2013 ("reconsideration hearing").
This Memorandum Opinion and Order supersedes the court's prior ruling (Doc. 27). For the reasons set forth below, the court reaffirms its conclusion that the Government did not violate Defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, and Defendants' motions to suppress were properly denied.
In order to understand the nature of the motion for reconsideration, it is helpful to recount the evidence presented at the two evidentiary hearings.
At the initial hearing, the Government presented the testimony of Deputy Justin Lee Russell ("Deputy Russell"), a seven-year veteran, and Sergeant Jerry Wayne Soles, Jr. ("Sergeant Soles"), a thirteen-year veteran, respectively, of the Davidson County (North Carolina) Sheriff's Office. Based onthe testimony of these officers and video evidence gathered from Deputy Russell's in-car video recorder (which bears a time counter synchronized with a clock),1 the court found the following facts:
Deputy Russell and Sergeant Soles were separately patrolling Interstate 85 in the early morning hours of February 13, 2012. At some point, Sergeant Soles observed two vehicles travelling closely together in a southbound lane and at a high rate of speed. At 12:38 a.m., Deputy Soles stopped the forward vehicle, and Deputy Russell stopped the rear vehicle, a Gold Hyundai Sonata that Williams was driving and in which MacMullen was riding as a passenger.
Upon initiating the traffic stop, Deputy Russell informed Williams that he was stopped for driving 80 m.p.h. in a 70 m.p.h. zone and requested Williams' driver's license and vehicle registration. Williams provided a New York driver's license and a rental agreement for the vehicle (Gov't Ex. 1). The rental agreement showed that the car was rented by MacMullen on February 10, 2012, in Totowa, New Jersey, and was due to be returned there on February 13, 2012, by 2:30 p.m. (Id.)
Deputy Russell requested that Williams exit the vehicle and sit in the patrol car while Deputy Russell checked Williams' documents. Williams acquiesced. MacMullen remained in the passenger seat of the Hyundai.2
Once inside the patrol car, Deputy Russell engaged Williams in conversation as the license check was conducted. During the course of their conversation, Williams indicated that they had stopped at his mother's house in Virginia Beach and were traveling to Charlotte, North Carolina, to visit his brother for a couple of days. Deputy Russell smelled alcohol on Williams' breath and asked if he had had anything to drink. Williams responded that he had a beer with supper. Deputy Russell contacted Sergeant Soles, who was still engaged in his traffic stop of the other vehicle fewer than 100 yards in front of Deputy Russell, to assist by administering a breathalyzer test on Williams. Sergeant Soles cut his stop short, giving the driver a warning, so he could assist Deputy Russell, and at approximately 12:45 a.m. he pulled his car, in which he also kept a drug dog, behind Deputy Russell's vehicle.
Upon arriving at the scene, Sergeant Soles approached the front passenger side of Deputy Russell's patrol car and greeted Williams through the open window (12:46:13 a.m.). Sergeant Soles testified that from there he could hear Williams' remaining conversation with Deputy Russell. Williams told Sergeant Soles he had consumed a beer, and Sergeant Soles administered the breathalyzer test as Williams remained seated in Deputy Russell's patrol car and Deputy Russell left to speak with MacMullen in the Hyundai Sonata.
While speaking with MacMullen, Deputy Russell inquired of Williams' alcohol consumption and their travel plans. MacMullen said that Williams had little to drink and that they were on their way to Charlotte. Deputy Russell asked her why they were going to Charlotte, to which she responded, "I don't know, we are just on vacation."
While Deputy Russell was speaking with MacMullen, Sergeant Soles conversed with Williams in connection with the administration of the breathalyzer test. During the course of this conversation, Williams told Sergeant Soles that he was on vacation and was going to visit his brother. He also told Sergeant Soles that his brother was driving the car Sergeant Soles had pulled over and that the two vehicles were traveling to Charlotte together. Sergeant Soles testified that this contradicted the statement of the driver of the first car whohad told him "he wasn't traveling with anybody." (Doc. 43 at 63:18.)3
Upon Deputy Russell's return to his vehicle, Sergeant Soles informed him that Williams' alcohol level was within the legal limit. Sergeant Soles continued to listen in on and participate in the remainder of the conversation, as Deputy Russell advised Williams that he would issue a warning ticket for speeding. When Deputy Russell requested an address for the purpose of completing the warning, Williams did not provide a physical address, but only gave a post office box for a company for which he said he worked in New York.
As Deputy Russell engaged in writing the warning ticket, Sergeant Soles asked Williams where he lived. Williams said he lived in both New York and New Jersey and that he and MacMullen share a child and lived together. Sergeant Soles asked where Williams was headed, and Williams said Charlotte; in response to a question of how long they were planning to stay, Williams said they were staying at the Wyndham hotel and it depended on how his brother's wife acted as to how long they would stay. Deputy Russell pointed out that the rental car was due that same day, and Williams said he would have to renew the contract in Charlotte.
Deputy Russell completed the warning ticket at 12:54:51 a.m. and gave it to Williams, who began to open the car door and lean to exit the patrol car. As he did so and as Sergeant Soles continued to listen in, Deputy Russell asked at 12:54:57 if he could ask a question before Williams left. Williams responded affirmatively with "uh, huh." Deputy Russell asked, "Nothing illegal in the car?" to which Williams responded there was not. Deputy Russell then asked, at 12:55:03 a.m., if he could search the car. Williams, while leaning to open the car door, responded with "uhhh." At 12:55:05 a.m., Deputy Russell repeated whether he could search the car. Williams, who was still leaning to open the patrol car door, asked, "for alcohol?" Deputy Russell again asked, "Can I search the vehicle?" (12:55:07 a.m.), and Williams responded by stating "there ain't any alcohol in there - we haven't been drinking." At 12:55:12 a.m., Deputy Russell said, "I am just asking you if I can search the vehicle." Williams, who was still leaning as if to exit the patrol car, paused and stated "you can look inside, there ain't no alcohol inside, no open container, nothing, I only had a beer." Russell sought clarification (12:55:22 a.m.) by asking "so you are saying I can look inside the vehicle?" Williams gave an inaudible response, to which Deputy Russell responded, "huh?" Deputy Russell again asked for consent to search (12:55:32 a.m.). At this point, Deputy Russell and Williamswere both exiting the patrol car and Williams headed toward his vehicle; Williams did not respond to Deputy Russell's question. Once the two men were outside, at 12:55:39 a.m., Deputy Russell asked "is it a yay or nay?" While Williams was walking back to his vehicle, he again stated there was no alcohol in the car. Deputy Russell again questioned whether Williams was giving consent to search at 12:55:46 a.m., as Williams, Sergeant Soles, and Deputy Russell were all approaching the Hyundai. In response, Williams opened the rear driver's side door and made a gesture indicating that the officers could look inside. As Williams was doing so, Deputy Russell shone his flashlight into the car. Williams continued to stand on the interstate and was therefore exposed to oncoming traffic.
In the interests of safety and based on his observation of the conversation, Sergeant Soles asked Williams to step to the rear of the vehicle out of the highway (12:56:02 a.m.). Sergeant Soles then told Williams, to which Williams interrupted saying, "we don't have no alcohol in there." Sergeant Soles said, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial