United States v. Winters
| Decision Date | 10 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:12-cr-102 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PATRICK J. WINTERS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
ORDER
On November 20, 2012, Defendant Patrick J. Winters' filed his Motion to Suppress (Doc. 22), which was referred to Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee (Doc. 24). Magistrate Judge Lee held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress and issued her Report and Recommendation (Doc. 30) ("R&R"), in which she recommended that Defendant's Motion be denied. Defendant timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Lee's R&R (Doc. 31), and the Government has now responded to his objections (Doc. 33).
The Court has now reviewed the entire record pertinent to the instant objections, and for the reasons described below, the Court will OVERRULE Defendant's Objections to the R&R, will ACCEPT and ADOPT Magistrate Judge Lee's R&R, and will DENY Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
The Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id.
Magistrate Judge Lee held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress on December 21, 2012. The only individuals to testify at that hearing were Chattanooga Police Officer Jason Duggan and Defendant's cousin, Robin Winters, who was driving the rental car at the time of the disputed traffic stop. (Doc. 29; Doc. 34 at 10-124). In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Lee recounted at some length the facts developed at the evidentiary hearing, and noted that "the events themselves . . . are largely undisputed." (Doc. 30 at 1-9.)
Defendant has not objected to the basic facts as outlined in Magistrate Judge Lee's R&R. Instead, Defendant's objections focus on Magistrate Judge Lee's findings and the legal conclusions as they relate to those facts, specifically, her findings that (1) the initial stop of the vehicle was completed at 12:24 a.m. and was not unreasonably extended from 12:17 a.m.; (2) the stop was reasonably prolonged from 12:24 a.m. because the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity; and (3) the drug-detection dog that was used was properly trained and reliable. (Doc. 31).
After reviewing the record, and finding the facts to be consistent with Judge Lee's R&R, the Court ADOPTS BY REFERENCE the facts as set out in Magistrate Judge Lee's R&R. (Doc. 30 at 1-9). The Court will refer to the facts only as necessary to analyze the issues raised on objection.
In his objections to Magistrate Judge Lee's R&R, Defendant reiterates the arguments initially raised in his Memorandum in support of his Motion to Suppress, namely: (1) the traffic stop was completed as of 12:17 a.m. when Officer Duggan had completed most of the warning ticket; (2) Officer Duggan unreasonably prolonged thetraffic stop for the purpose of performing a dog sniff on the vehicle; (3) Officer Duggan did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to continue the stop; and (4) the drug sniffing dog that was used was not sufficiently trained or reliable. (Doc. 31; see Doc. 23).
Magistrate Judge Lee concluded that, although the speeding violation that prompted the initial stop had been addressed by 12:17 a.m., the stop itself was not completed by that time, as the warning ticket had not yet been completed or signed. Magistrate Judge Lee went on to find that, although Officer Duggan extended the not-yet-completed stop by engaging Defendant in conversation from 12:17 a.m. to 12:22 a.m., the extension was not unreasonable, as the Officer was acting diligently, asking context-framing questions, and did not measurably prolong the traffic stop until its completion at 12:24 a.m.
Based on the Court's independent review of the record, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee's finding that the stop was not completed by 12:17 a.m.: Officer Duggan had not yet issued the warning to the driver, but he had not abandoned the traffic stop at that time, as evidenced by the fact that he completed the warning and obtained the driver's signature at 12:24 a.m. The Court also agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee's finding that the stop was not unreasonably extended in scope or duration. Officer Duggan was diligent in his investigation: his additional questioning lasted only a few minutes and consisted primarily of context-framing questions regarding the occupants' travel plans and other related matters. See, e.g., United States v. Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334, 340-41 (6th Cir. 2012) (); United States v. Everett, 601 F.3d 484, 494-495 (6th Cir. 2010) (). Accordingly Defendant's objection to these findings will be...
To continue reading
Request your trial