United States v. Wright

• Decision Date: 09 February 2023
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL 2:20-CR-01444
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JACOB BOONE WRIGHT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JACOB BOONE WRIGHT

CRIMINAL No. 2:20-CR-01444

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division

February 9, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On July 15, 2020, Jacob Boone Wright and another passenger were sitting inside Wright's Toyota Corolla next to Glen Arbor Park when he noticed a Corpus Christi Police Department (“CCPD”) patrol car pull up behind him with emergency lights engaged. Unbeknownst to Wright, a neighborhood resident had contacted the police and reported that Wright was selling drugs in the park.

As the police car came to a stop behind him, Wright exited the car as if to approach the officer. The officer immediately and repeatedly instructed Wright to get back in his car, but he refused to comply. The officer then instructed Wright to walk back to her patrol car and, once again, he refused to comply. Instead, he stood next to his car and began removing keys from his keychain, even though the officer instructed him to stop doing that.

The officer then walked Wright to the front of his car and attempted to place handcuffs on him, however, he resisted and started banging on the hood shouting instructions to the passenger who had remained in Wright's car. Wright was placed under arrest for resisting and a search of his vehicle discovered a pistol and narcotics.

1

Since Wright had a prior felony conviction, he was charged with felon in possession of a firearm.

Wright moved to suppress the firearm as evidence discovered from an investigatory stop and seizure that lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion. The Court denied that motion, and Wright appealed. The Fifth Circuit ruled that this Court had erred in its determination of when Wright was seized and remanded the case to this Court to provide written findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether reasonable suspicion existed when the police pulled behind Wright and ordered him to remain in his vehicle.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT^[1]

On July 15, 2020, a resident who lives adjacent to Glen Arbor Park noticed a stationary vehicle inside the park at the pavilion. (Tr. at 9:19-10:2). The resident called the police because he knew from experience that there was extensive drug dealing occurring in the park generally, and by that car, a gold Toyota Corolla, specifically. (Tr. at 10:23-11:7, 15:14-19). The resident “caller” did not give his name, address or telephone number to the police. (Tr. at 12:12-20, 33:6-8). It is common for callers to remain anonymous out of fear for their safety, especially if they are reporting criminal activity in a high crime area where they live. (Tr. at 45:3-13). CCPD did not attempt to locate the caller that day. (Tr. at 33:9-21).

2

The caller stated the following to the police dispatch officer:

I told them that there was a gold Toyota Corolla that was at the pavilion doing a re-up, giving drugs to the transients that deal in that park and that they needed to come there and get them out of my park

(Tr. at 16:19-22).

The caller was frustrated with the police's ineffectiveness in dealing with the crime and drug dealing around his home. (Tr. at 14:11-18). Reflecting this frustration, the caller relayed the following to the dispatch officer:

I told them that I had my AR-15 locked and loaded with 31 rounds of armor-piercing weaponry and that if I needed to, I could do their job for them

(Tr. at 14:20-24, 16:23-25).

The foregoing communication from the caller is a report of suspicious activity, or in this case, a suspicious vehicle report (as opposed to an emergency 911 call). A suspicious vehicle report begins when a member of the public contacts the police department and provides information to a dispatch officer, often called “dispatch” for short. (Tr. at 30:24-31:7). That information is evaluated by dispatch, and if in their opinion it should be acted upon, the dispatch officer confers with a lieutenant who reviews the information and makes the decision as to whether the information is reliable enough to warrant sending out an officer to investigate. (Tr. at 45:25-46:6). Dispatch then relays a summary of the caller's information, commonly referred to as a “call summary log,” to a patrol officer who reviews the summary on a computer screen in their patrol car. (Tr. at 30:24-31:17).

3

In this case, that process played out and an incident call-out was made to Officer Riky Jakobsohn. Officer Jakobsohn was employed as a CCPD officer in mid-2018. (Tr. at 18:5-12). She regularly patrolled a district called “4 Charlie,” which is near Glen Arbor Park. (Tr. at 18:21-19:8). She was very familiar with this area because she received three or four calls per 10-hour shift related to that area. (Tr. at 19:17-20:15). Those calls typically involve drug use and dealing. (Tr. at 20:25-21:4). Officer Jakobsohn further testified about “a few primary problems” in her patrol area. (Tr. at 21:11-17). One of those is a drug trafficking corridor near Glen Arbor Park where people pass back and forth between a few houses. (Tr. at 21:8-17).

On July 15, 2020, Officer Jakobsohn received a call-out from a dispatcher at 4:34 p.m., stating that “there was a suspicious vehicle over here dealing drugs” next to Glen Arbor Park. (Gov. Exh. 3 at 2:50-2:55); (Tr. at 19:9-16). A call summary log provided to Officer Jakobsohn from dispatch contained the following language: “SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE AT LOC[ATION]/RP ADV DRUG DEALERS/NO DRIVING CARS AT LOC[ATION].” (Def. Exh. 1). Additionally, the call summary log stated that a caller had provided the following information:

[THE POLICE DEPARTMENT] NEEDS TO GET THESE DRUG DEALERS OUT OF HIS PARK DID THREATEN TO SHOOT SUBJ[ECTS] IF THEY DID SOMETHING THAT REQUIRED HIM TO DEFEND HIMSELF REF[USED] TO GIVE INFO ON HIMSELF ALSO [ADVISED] OF A GOLD COROLLA AT LOC[ATION]/IS ONE OF THE [SUBJECT'S] CARS

4

(Def. Exh. 1); (Tr. at 34:13-16, 35:10-16). Officer Jakobsohn was also provided the address. (Def. Exh. 1); (Tr. at 49:7-9).

Officer Jakobsohn responded in approximately 10 minutes. (Tr. at 11:10-13, 22:1423:5, 37:15-22). She immediately identified the suspicious vehicle confirming the color, make, model and location and pulled up behind it. (Tr. at 22:14-23:5, 34:2-7, 37:23-38:3); (Gov. Exh. 2 at 0:11-0:31). The caller watched the officer pull up and verified that she was behind the Corolla about which he had called. (Tr. at 11:14-20). Officer Jakobsohn did not know what the caller had said to dispatch other than the call-out and what was delivered on the call summary log. (Tr. at 36:24-37:3). She had not observed any drug dealing activity by anyone in the area at that time. (Tr. at 39:18-24).

Upon arrival, Officer Jakobsohn noted that there were two occupants in the Corolla. (Tr. at 23:6-9); (Gov. Exh. 2 at 0:31-0:38). As she pulled to a stop, the driver, later identified as Wright, opened his car door and exited the car as if to approach her. (Tr. at 23:15-24:1); (Gov. Exh. 2 at 0:37-0:47). Officer Jakobsohn immediately instructed Wright to remain in his vehicle. (Tr. at 38:4-6); (Gov. Exh. 2 at 0:37-0:47); (Gov. Exh. 3 at 0:38-0:43). In fact, Officer Jakobsohn instructed him to get back into his car three times, and each time Wright refused to comply. (Tr. at 38:4-6); (Gov. Exh. 2 at 0:37-0:47); (Gov. Exh. 3 at 0:38-0:43). One of the reasons someone exits a vehicle when a police officer approaches is to separate themselves from the car so the officer does not see inside it thereby potentially concealing evidence of criminal conduct. (Tr. at 47:10-48:5).

As a result of Wright's refusal to get back in his car, Officer Jakobsohn instructed...