United States v. Williams

Decision Date09 July 2019
Docket NumberAugust Term 2018,No. 17-3741-cr,17-3741-cr
Citation930 F.3d 44
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Andy WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

For Appellee: Tanya Hajjar, Assistant United States Attorney (Jo Ann M. Navickas, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York.

For Defendant-Appellant: Darrell Fields, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Appeals Bureau, New York, New York.

Before: Kearse, Livingston, and Carney, Circuit Judges.

Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judge:

Defendant-Appellant Andy Williams ("Williams") appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (DeArcy Hall, J .), entered November 14, 2017, following a jury trial, convicting him of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Williams argues that (1) the loaded firearm found in the center console of the rental car that he was driving on the day of his arrest should have been suppressed at trial because it was discovered during an improper second inventory search of the vehicle; (2) his exculpatory post-arrest statements denying knowledge or ownership of the firearm should have been admitted when his oral and written statements confessing ownership were introduced; and (3) evidence as to his gang affiliation and willingness to assist police in finding guns and drugs should have been excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 404(b).

We conclude that (1) police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by returning to search Williams’s car again after detectives overheard Williams make a phone call that aroused their suspicion that they may have missed something of value in the car during their initial inventory search; (2) contrary to Williams’s claim, neither the doctrine of completeness nor the Fifth Amendment mandated the admission of his post-arrest statements denying ownership or knowledge of the gun; and (3) Williams’s arguments as to the inadmissibility of the evidence of his gang affiliation and willingness to assist the police either (a) fail because the evidence was properly admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) and was not unfairly prejudicial or (b) are waived. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

BACKGROUND
I. Factual Background1

On the clear morning of August 27, 2015, three plainclothes detectives from the New York City Police Department’s ("NYPD") Brooklyn South Gang Squad sat in an unmarked car on Utica Avenue in Brooklyn. Inside a nearby funeral home, mourners were gathered for funeral services. The deceased had been in a gang, so Detective Dominick Latorre ("Detective Latorre") and his colleagues were keeping an eye on the surrounding area in case rival gangs showed up looking to cause trouble. At around 10 A.M., the detectives spotted a white Nissan sedan traveling at a high rate of speed. The driver was recklessly weaving between traffic lanes so as to cut others off, and was heading in the direction of the funeral home. The detectives gave chase, caught up to the Nissan, and signaled to the driver, Williams, to pull over. Williams pulled to the side of the road.

Detective Latorre approached the driver’s side of the car and asked Williams, who was alone in the sedan, for his license and registration. Williams provided his license and a rental agreement for the Nissan. Detective Latorre immediately observed that the car had been rented to someone else, Jennisha Hosam ("Hosam"), and that Williams was not listed in the agreement as an authorized driver. Williams claimed the Nissan was his "girl’s car." GA-55.2 The detectives then arrested Williams for unauthorized use of the rental car as well as for speeding and driving recklessly. He was placed in the back of the detectives’ car and transported to the nearest precinct by Detective Latorre and one of his colleagues, Detective Joseph Fichter ("Detective Fichter"). The third detective, Detective Michael Christiano, followed in Williams’s car and parked it out front.

At the precinct, Williams was put in a holding cell while the detectives began to process the arrest. Detective Fichter commenced an "inventory search" of Williams’s car while Detective Latorre observed. According to Detective Latorre, an inventory search is mandatory in arrest processing: "[I]ts importance is to make sure that things are returned to the proper owner and that the wrong things or dangerous things are not returned to anyone." GA-38–39. The car’s interior, glove box, and trunk were all searched, yielding several items, including: (1) a roll of duct tape, in the glove box; (2) a pair of black gloves, from the driver’s side door; and (3) a black mask made of hard plastic, which Detective Fichter discovered in the trunk of the car, wedged inside the enclosed area containing the spare tire. Detective Fichter also recovered postmarked envelopes from the Nissan dated August 21, 2015, and addressed to Williams. After finding these items, Detectives Latorre and Fichter went back inside the precinct to continue processing Williams’s arrest.

As Detective Latorre was fingerprinting Williams, Williams asked what was going to happen to the rental car. Detective Latorre informed him that the car was probably going to be towed back to the rental agency. Seemingly alarmed by this prospect, Williams said "I’m entitled to a phone call. I want to make one." SPA-6. Detective Latorre handed Williams a phone. Williams proceeded to call someone (he said it was his girlfriend) and, standing about two or three feet away from Detective Latorre, told this person that he or she needed to "come get this car right now" because the police were "looking to tow it." GA-41–42; SPA-6–7. Williams spoke at a high pitch and fast pace that Detective Latorre took to indicate that Williams’s "stress level was elevated ... he sounded definitely more stressed." GA-42.

Detective Latorre thought Williams’s agitation was curious. He and Detective Fichter decided to go back and search the car again to make sure that "there was [not] something more important in the vehicle that we didn’t see yet." GA-42–43; SPA-7. As Detective Fichter put it, "I felt I missed something." GA-97. On the way to the car, in what turned out to be a fortunate encounter, they ran into Detective Ashley Breton ("Detective Breton"), who volunteered to help as "an extra pair of eyes." GA-42; SPA-8. After just one to two minutes of searching the interior of the car, including the front area, arm rests, and front and rear seats, Detective Breton popped open the car’s center console, which Detective Fichter had not previously examined. There, Detective Breton discovered a loaded gun. According to Detective Breton, though the console in the Nissan is not designed to open, it can be opened easily with no need for special tools or force by unsnapping three plastic pieces "that connect to the left side paneling" and that can be easily snapped back into place to close the console. A-110; GA-11. Indeed, Detective Breton testified that he usually checks inside car consoles during inventory searches, because he has located contraband there "more than once." A-111.

After the firearm was discovered, Williams was rearrested and taken to a private room to be interviewed. There, Detectives Latorre and Fichter read him his Miranda rights, using a standard form. Williams agreed to waive his rights and signed the form, affirming his willingness to answer questions. Williams thereafter orally acknowledged that the firearm belonged to him and, at the detectives’ request, he wrote out a statement memorializing this confession. The signed statement reads in full: "I had the gun. I had no intenten of hurting any1 Im sorry." A-162; GA-48–49. During the same interview, Williams told the detectives that he is a member of the Crips gang, that he is also known as "Spillz," and that he associates with people in both the Crips and Folk Nation gangs. Williams further indicated that he was "willing to work," and could "get firearms and narcotics."3 GA-104–05, 118.

Hosam, who rented the white Nissan sedan, testified at Williams’s trial. A student at Borough of Manhattan Community College, Hosam gave Williams a lift one day when she saw him in the Brooklyn neighborhood where her son goes to day care. (She had known Williams for about a year at that time, she ran into him periodically, and she was not his girlfriend.) Hosam was then driving a red Nissan Altima that she had rented for the weekend. Upon learning that Hosam was driving a rental car, Williams asked if she would be willing to rent a car for him, as he did not have a credit card. Hosam first extended the rental of the red Nissan, giving Williams its use. Williams paid Hosam for the rental in cash, which "worked in [her] favor too pretty much," as she "could use the car as well without paying for it." GA-74, 80. When the red Nissan Altima was shortly thereafter involved in a minor accident, Hosam exchanged it for a light-colored vehicle, which she also provided to Williams. The only occasion on which she drove this second car, which she did not recall well, was "[t]he day that we exchanged it," and after providing the car to Williams, she saw him only twice between July and late August 2015. GA-76, 141. She left no personal items in the second car, and specifically left neither gloves nor a mask in the vehicle. She also did not leave a firearm in the car and had never owned one.

II. Procedural History

Williams was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York in October 2015, less than two months after his arrest, and was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Williams pled not guilty. He moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that police had violated the Fourth Amendment when, after conducting the first inventory search, they returned to the car...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Hawthorne v. Cnty. of the Putnam
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 6, 2020
    ...which an officer's improper motive can invalidate ‘objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment.’ " United States v. Williams , 930 F.3d 44, 56 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Kentucky v. King , 563 U.S. 452, 464, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (quoting Whren v. United States......
  • Towns v. Stannard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • December 20, 2019
    ...the Northway, Defendants were entitled to take the car into custody and conduct a corresponding inventory search. United States v. Williams , 930 F.3d 44, 53 (2d Cir. 2019) ("The Supreme Court has long recognized that when police ‘take a vehicle into custody, they may search the vehicle and......
  • United States v. Tuzman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 3, 2021
    ...any argument that this Court should have sua sponte granted him a severance based on the fabrication issue. See United States v. Williams, 930 F.3d 44, 64-65 (2d Cir. 2019) ("[a] claim is waived . . . when a defendant makes an 'intentional decision not to assert a right' or, put another way......
  • United States v. Bodnar
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 21, 2022
    ...a lavatory onboard. Government App'x 18 (testimony of FAA official).50 Carney , 471 U.S. at 392, 105 S.Ct. 2066.51 United States v. Williams , 930 F.3d 44, 64 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Williams v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2816, 210 L.Ed.2d 939 (2021) (internal q......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • TOWARD A MORE PERFECT TRIAL: AMENDING FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 106 AND 803 TO COMPLETE THE RULE OF COMPLETENESS.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 111 No. 4, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth." (internal quotations omitted)). (141) See United States v. Williams, 930 F.3d 44, 58-59 (2d Cir. (142) 488 U.S. 153,171(1988). (143) See WRIGHT & GRAHAM, supra note 10, [section] 5074.1. (144) Williams, 930 F.3d at 59. (145......
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...856 F.3d 174, 177-78 (1st Cir. 2017) (issue not preserved because objection did not refer to specif‌ic claim of error); U.S. v. Williams, 930 F.3d 44, 64 (2d Cir. 2019) (issue not preserved because EVIEW R V. ROCEEDINGS P 51 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. (2022) 1043 appellate court will r......

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