US v. Anderson
Decision Date | 23 January 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 95-40065-01-SAC.,95-40065-01-SAC. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Anthony ANDERSON, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Joseph D. Johnson, Joseph D. Johnson, Chtd., Topeka, KS, George O. Lawson, Jr., Derek M. Wright, Lawson & Thornton, Atlanta, GA, and Anthony Anderson, Inglewood, CA, for defendant.
Thomas G. Luedke, Office of United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for the U.S.
On September 20, 1995, the grand jury returned a one count indictment charging the defendant, Anthony Anderson, with knowingly possessing with intent to distribute approximately six kilograms of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine hydrochloride. The substance alleged to be cocaine was apparently seized during a search of the vehicle driven by Anderson.
This case comes before the court upon the following pretrial motions filed by Anderson:
1. Defendant's motion to suppress (Dk. 15).
2. Defendant Anthony Anderson's Motion for Discovery (Dk. 22).
3. Defendant's motion for Disclosure (Dk. 23).
4. Defendant Anthony Anderson's Motion for Witness List or production of Witnesses and incorporated memorandum of law (Dk. 24).
5. Defendant Anthony Anderson's Motion for Transcription and production of grand jury testimony and brief in support (Dk. 25).
6. Defendant's motion and brief for early disclosure of Jencks Act material and memorandum of law in support thereof (Dk. 26).
The government has filed responses addressing Anderson's motions. See (Dk. 20 and 27).
On December 8, 1995, the court conducted a hearing on the defendant's motions. The court, having considered the arguments and briefs of counsel, the evidence presented at the December 8, 1995, hearing, and the applicable law, is now prepared to rule.
Defendant's motion to suppress (Dk. 15).
On April 8, 1995, Anderson was driving eastbound on Interstate 70 in Saline County, Kansas. At approximately 11:20 a.m., Trooper David Heim observed Anderson driving eastbound. Trooper Heim stopped Anderson because Anderson was following another vehicle too closely. According to Anderson, Trooper Heim's stop was merely a pretext to conduct a search of his vehicle, a Chevy Suburban with California tags. Trooper Heim apparently only issued Anderson a warning for following too closely, but asked if he could search the vehicle, to which Anderson assented. During his search of the vehicle, Trooper Heim ultimately found six kilograms of cocaine in a secret compartment in the gas tank.
Anderson seeks to suppress the evidence on several grounds. Summarized, these are the alternative grounds for suppression:
1. No probable cause to stop Anderson's vehicle existed;
2. The stop of the vehicle was a pretextual stop motivated by an improper purpose;
3. No probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed to justify the continued detention of Anderson following the issuance of the warning;
4. Anderson's consent to search the vehicle was not voluntary;
5. No warrant to search the vehicle was obtained. The government opposes the defendant's motion, arguing that the search was not pretextual, that Anderson's consent to search was voluntary, and that there was nothing unlawful about the manner in which Anderson was stopped or his vehicle was searched. The government contends that no search warrant was necessary under the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment.
To the extent that Anderson argued that the stop of his vehicle was pretextual, his motion to suppress was based upon the Tenth Circuit's decision in United States v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir.1988). On December 5, 1995, in United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783 (10th Cir.1995), the Tenth Circuit overruled in part its decision in Guzman. In light of this substantial departure from past precedent, the court provided each party an opportunity to file supplemental briefs in support of their respective positions. Each party subsequently filed supplemental briefs.
United States v. Seslar, 996 F.2d 1058, 1060 (10th Cir.1993).
"A traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring." United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783, 786 (10th Cir.1995). "Our sole inquiry is whether this particular officer had reasonable suspicion that this particular motorist violated any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations of the jurisdiction." Id., quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1400, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). For purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, it does not matter whether: (1) "the stop in question is sufficiently ordinary or routine according to the general practice of the police department or the particular officer making the stop," quoting United States v. Ferguson, 8 F.3d 385, 391 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 97, 130 L.Ed.2d 47 (1994); and (2) "the officer may have had other subjective motives for stopping the vehicle." Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d at 787.1
The law governing the conduct of an officer during a traffic stop is well-settled in the Tenth Circuit:
United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 539-540 (10th Cir.1994); see United States v. Lee, 73 F.3d 1034, 1040 (10th Cir.1996).
Sandoval, 29 F.3d at 540. See Lee, 73 F.3d at 1040 ( )(quoting United States v. Gonzalez-Lerma, 14 F.3d 1479, 1483 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1862, 128 L.Ed.2d 484 (1994)).
Detention "can only be justified if specific and articulable facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts gave...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Anderson
...for information relating to the normal practices of Trooper Heim and his superiors were properly denied as moot. United States v. Anderson, 915 F.Supp. 1146 (D.Kan.1996). Mr. Anderson argues: (1) the district court clearly erred in holding that Trooper Heim observed Mr. Anderson commit a tr......
-
United States v. Patterson
...must be some sort of corroborative evidence in order for the presumption of regularity to be overcome. See United States v. Anderson, 915 F. Supp. 1146, 1157 (D. Kan. 1996), aff'd, 114 F.3d 1059 (10th Cir. 1997). That is particularly true in a case where the defendant's own statements—on wh......