US v. Morris
| Citation | 910 F. Supp. 1428 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 95-3004.,CR 95-3004. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Michael Bernard MORRIS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Janet Papenthein, Assistant United States Attorney, Sioux City, Iowa, for the U.S.
Alfredo Parrish of Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn & Montgomery, Des Moines, Iowa, for Defendant Michael Bernard Morris.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................1432
II. FINDINGS OF FACT ...................................................1433
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS .....................................................1439
A. Unreasonable Delay ..............................................1440
1. Delay prior to issuance of citations .........................1440
2. Delay after issuance of Mr. Morris's citation ................1443
B. Reasonable Suspicion For Further Search..........................1444
C. Consent .........................................................1446
1. The voluntariness of Mr. Morris's consent ....................1446
a. Circumstances in which consent was obtained ...............1447
b. Characteristics and conduct of the consenting person.......1448
2. Was the consent "tainted"? ...................................1449
3. Scope of the consent .........................................1449
IV. CONCLUSION .........................................................1450
This motion to suppress requires the court to test for unconstitutional taint before, at the time of, and following the defendant's consent to the search of a vehicle he was driving. In the process, the court must examine the interplay between the defendant's consent to the search and circumstances that would otherwise make the search and seizure in this case unreasonable. An improper pass of another motor vehicle caused a trooper with the Iowa State Patrol to stop the defendant's vehicle and that stop eventually led to the seizure of weapons from the trunk of the defendant's vehicle, followed by charges against the defendant for being a felon in possession of firearms. The defendant has moved to suppress evidence resulting from the search of his vehicle principally on the ground that an unreasonable delay between the stop and the search for weapons tainted the circumstances under which any evidence was eventually obtained, including his consent to the search, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
On February 21, 1995, a three-count indictment was returned against defendant Michael Bernard Morris as the result of a traffic stop of the automobile Mr. Morris was driving on October 21, 1994, and the discovery in that vehicle of a shotgun, handgun, and ammunition. The indictment charged Mr. Morris with (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); (2) being a felon in possession of firearm ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); and (3) criminal forfeiture of the firearms pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(d).
On October 12, 1995, Mr. Morris filed a motion to suppress evidence discovered as the result of a warrantless search of his vehicle following the traffic stop on October 21, 1994. The gravamen of Mr. Morris's motion as filed was that his continued detention and the search of his vehicle after a traffic citation had been issued was not supported by reasonable suspicion, and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Morris seeks to suppress evidence garnered from the assertedly unconstitutional search, including the weapons themselves and any statements he made to law enforcement officers after the search of his vehicle. The United States resisted the motion to suppress on October 24, 1995.
The court held an evidentiary hearing and arguments on the motion to suppress on November 9, 1995. The United States was represented by Janet Papenthein, Assistant United States Attorney, of the United States Attorney's Office in Sioux City, Iowa. Defendant Michael Bernard Morris was represented by Alfredo Parrish of Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn & Montgomery, in Des Moines, Iowa. At the hearing, the United States presented the testimony of Iowa State Patrol Trooper Kelly Hindman. Mr. Morris offered no witnesses or other evidence.
The oral arguments following submission of testimony did much to clarify the issues presented by Mr. Morris's motion to suppress. Mr. Morris seeks to suppress the evidence in question on three grounds: that he had been detained for an unreasonably long time before the search in which the weapons were found was initiated; that the reinitiation of a search of his vehicle after he had been issued a citation was not supported by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and that any consent he may have given for the search revealing the weapons was tainted by the unreasonably long detention.
During the course of oral arguments, the United States requested leave to file a brief in resistance to the motion to suppress in light of the evidence and arguments presented during the hearing. The court granted the United States leave to file a brief in resistance to the motion not later than November 20, 1995, and the government's brief was filed on that date. Mr. Morris was granted until November 27, 1995, to file a response to the brief of the United States. Mr. Morris orally sought an extension of his deadline to file a response brief, and eventually filed a written motion requesting until December 1, 1995, to file his response brief. That motion for extension was granted and Mr. Morris filed his response brief on December 1, 1995. This matter is now fully submitted, and the court may turn to the facts upon which disposition of the motion to suppress depends.
The court makes these findings of fact for the purposes of this motion to suppress only. On October 21, 1994, upon logging back into service on his car radio after attending a court hearing in Webster City, Iowa State Patrol Trooper Kelly Hindman received a report from state radio in Cedar Falls that a truck driver travelling with another truck southbound on a nearby county road, P-59, had used his cellular telephone to report that the two trucks had been passed on the right, that is, on the shoulder, by two automobiles. Trooper Hindman got on U.S. Highway 20, which is a four-lane highway, and headed westbound hoping to intercept the trucks and cars. Through dispatch radio, Trooper Hindman learned that the truck drivers were willing to stop and file charges against the drivers of the automobiles that had passed them improperly, and he also learned that the four vehicles in question were now eastbound on Highway 20 coming toward him. The truck driver identified the vehicles that had improperly passed the two trucks as a black Lincoln Town Car followed by a grey Cadillac and he provided a license plate number for the Cadillac, the second of the two automobiles, as Iowa number UVA 181.
Trooper Hindman met the four vehicles in Webster County, about halfway between Fort Dodge and Webster City. After cutting through the center median and heading back eastbound, Trooper Hindman passed the semi-trailer trucks and motioned to the two cars to pull over. All five of the vehicles involved, including Trooper Hindman's, moved to the shoulder of the road and stopped, with Trooper Hindman's vehicle between the two automobiles and the two semitrailer trucks, or third in line. According to Trooper Hindman's report, this stop occurred at 10:29 a.m. The vehicles stopped on the eastbound side of Highway 20 in Webster County about three or four miles from the town of Duncombe, roughly mid-way between Fort Dodge and Webster City and approximately ten or twelve miles from each of those cities. The area where the stop took place was an open, public location next to a divided, four-lane highway that, according to Trooper Hindman's testimony, "looks all the world like an interstate, except in that area there aren't on ramps and off ramps."
Upon stopping, Trooper Hindman observed that in the front vehicle, the Lincoln, the driver, a male, and the passenger, a female, were attempting to change places. Trooper Hindman radioed this information to Cedar Falls and requested a backup car. He was advised that Trooper Tim Van Engen and a training officer, Trooper Rob Mordini, were already en route to Trooper Hindman's location. Trooper Hindman then left his vehicle and asked the driver of the Cadillac to roll down his window. Trooper Hindman told the driver and passenger of the Cadillac he would need some identification and then told the occupants of the Lincoln the same thing. The Lincoln was driven by Mario Wright and his passenger was a Ginger or a Gayle Anderson. The driver of the Cadillac was defendant Michael Morris, a 19-year-old black male, and his passenger was Donna Crandall. Trooper Hindman told all of the occupants of the vehicles to stay in their cars and advised each of the drivers separately that the truck drivers had made complaints of improper passing and that their complaints were the reason he had stopped the two cars.
During this conversation with Mr. Morris, Trooper Hindman observed a small baseball bat, about eighteen inches long, stuck between the front seats of the Cadillac and a can of mace on the console. Trooper Hindman asked Mr. Morris to hand these items out of the car window and placed them on top of the Cadillac. Trooper Hindman testified that he had taken this precaution for his own safety. He then asked Mr. Morris if there were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gonzalez
...v. Wellman, 185 F.3d 651, 655-56 (6th Cir.1999); United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir.2001); United States v. Morris, 910 F.Supp. 1428, 1440 (N.D.Iowa 1995); Mitchell v. United States, 746 A.2d 877, 887 (D.C.Cir.2000); Dickey, 152 N.J. at 476, 706 A.2d at 184; see also U......
-
United States v. Yang, No. CR01-3060-MWB (N.D. Iowa 6/19/2002)
...suspicion, an officer is justified in broadening the scope of the inquiry to satisfy those suspicions. United States v. Morris, 910 F. Supp. 1428, 1441 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (Bennett, J.) (citing United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357-58 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ramos, 42 F.3d 1160, ......
-
Cronin v. Peterson
...and for the hospital staff to take and process the blood and urine samples—were within Koepke's control. See United States v. Morris, 910 F. Supp. 1428, 1442 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (concluding, in a motion to suppress context, that a valid detention "does not become unreasonable in length as long......
-
State v. Ready
... ... "[T]he proper scope of a stop for a traffic violation ends when the reasons for the initial stop have been completely processed and no further matters suggesting a broadening of the inquiry have been presented or such further matters have also been processed." U.S. v ... Morris, 910 F.Supp. 1428, 1443 (N.D.Iowa 1995). At this point, Peters stated [5 Neb.App. 150] that the purpose of the stop was over. He did not testify or suggest that he had any reason to continue detaining Ready. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the Court stated ... ...