Wilson v. United States
Decision Date | 06 April 2016 |
Docket Number | Criminal No. ELH-10-0488 |
Parties | TIMOTHY WILSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Defendant. |
Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland) |
Timothy Wilson has filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. ECF 195 (the "Petition").1 Wilson challenges his 2011 drug convictions, asserting a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights as a result of a traffic stop that led to a scan by a drug detection dog and then a search of his vehicle. Citing Rodriguez v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), Wilson maintains that the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged, without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, in order to conduct the canine scan. ECF 195 at 4. In addition, Wilson claims that his trial attorney "was ineffective for not challenging the constitute[ionality] of the search [of the vehicle] absent reasonable suspicion." Id. at 5.
The government opposes the motion on several grounds. ECF 202. Mr. Wilson has not filed a reply.
No hearing is needed to resolve the Petition. For the reasons set forth below, I shall deny the Petition.
Mr. Wilson and his codefendant, Luis Ahorrio, Jr., were charged in a two-count superseding indictment with conspiracy to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base (i.e., crack cocaine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and with possession with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. ECF 83. The charges were rooted in a routine traffic stop that began at approximately 7:26 p.m. on July 23, 2010, in Worcester County, Maryland. During the stop, which was recorded on video, a drug detection canine, Camo, alerted to the presence of narcotics in a rented Toyota Corolla with a New Jersey license plate. Ahorrio was the driver of the vehicle and Wilson was the sole passenger.
Maryland State Officer Corporal Howard Kennard effectuated the stop for speeding on U.S. Route 113 and for following another vehicle too closely. ECF 95 (Memorandum Opinion of November 18, 2011), at 1-2. Kennard had been a Maryland State trooper since 1997. ECF 78 ( ) at 21. Using a laser, he determined that the vehicle was traveling 65 miles per hour, which was ten miles above the speed limit. ECF 95 at 2 n.3. Trooper First Class Dana Orndorff arrived at the scene at 7:37 p.m., before completion of the traffic stop, and began to walk around the vehicle with the dog. ECF 95 at 6. After Camo alerted, the police conducted a search of the vehicle and recovered a substantial quantity of cocaine base. ECF 47-1 (Criminal Investigation Report) at 5; see also ECF 68-2 (Report of Investigation by Special Agent Mark Joyner).
Through counsel, Mr. Wilson filed, inter alia, a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. See ECF 28. Ahorrio also filed a motion to suppress. See ECF 43. In his submission, Wilson's defense attorney argued, in part, that the defendants' detention "exceeded that necessary forCorporal Kennard to address the alleged traffic violations." Id. at 9. He also asserted: "There was insufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the extended detention of the Toyota which was subjected to a canine scan and therefore the subsequent search of the car was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment." Id.; see also id. at 7-9. Further, Wilson's defense counsel complained, id. at 6: Among other cases, defense counsel cited Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005). See ECF 28 at 7.
The government opposed the various defense motions in a consolidated response. ECF 47. It also submitted several exhibits, including Kennard's Criminal Investigation Report (ECF 47-1) and the videotape of the stop. See ECF 47 at 2 n.2.
Cpl. Kennard's criminal investigation report (ECF 47-1 at 6-7) reflected that the canine scan was conducted based on 2
Thereafter, on June 24, 2011, Wilson's lawyer filed a supplemental motion to suppress evidence. ECF 71. In the supplement, defense counsel argued that the canine did not have a reliable track record. ECF 71 at 1. The government opposed Wilson's supplemental motion. See ECF 72. In addition, it submitted several additional exhibits.3
Wilson's lawyer filed a supplemental memorandum on July 26, 2011 (ECF 73), in which he relied on what was then a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit, United States v. DiGiovanni, 650 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2011). Defense counsel argued that the traffic stop "exceeded both in scope and duration what is permitted by the Fourth Amendment and that no reasonable articulable suspicion existed to justify Mr. Wilson's detention." ECF 73 at 1-2.
Judge Quarles heard testimony and argument on various motions on July 29, 2011. ECF 74. The suppression hearing resumed on November 15, 2011. ECF 90. The transcripts for the two proceedings are docketed at ECF 78 (7/29/11) and ECF 104 (11/15/11), respectively.
After the hearing in July 2011, but before Judge Quarles ruled, Wilson's defense attorney submitted yet another memorandum in support of the motion to suppress, addressing the canine's entry into the vehicle. ECF 79. Defense counsel cited, inter alia, Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). See ECF 79 at 2. The government responded at ECF 80, supported by another exhibit.
In a Memorandum Opinion (ECF 95) and Order (ECF 96) issued November 18, 2011, Judge Quarles denied defendants' motion to suppress.4 The ruling resulted in a published opinion. See United States v. Wilson, 278 F.R.D. 145 (D. Md. 2011).
In his ruling on the suppression motion, Judge Quarles made the following findings of fact, in relevant part, ECF 95 at 1-7 (footnotes omitted):
To continue reading
Request your trial