United States v. Brown

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES S. BROWN, Defendant.

No. 23-00182-01-CR-W-BP

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

March 29, 2024

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

W. BRIAN GADDY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending is Defendant Charles S. Brown's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements, which was filed on December 4, 2023. Doc. 21. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends Defendant's motion to suppress be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2023, the grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). Doc. 1. The charge involves a firearm law enforcement seized from Defendant on March 22, 2023. Id. On December 4, 2023, Defendant filed a motion seeking to suppress, among other things, the seized firearm. Doc. 21.

On February 12, 2024, the undersigned held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's motion. Docs. 29, 31. Defendant was present and represented by counsel, Assistant Federal Public Defender Ronna Holloman-Hughes. Id. Assistant United States Attorney Mike Green represented the Government. Id. At the hearing, one witnesses testified: Harold Echols. Id. In addition, ten exhibits were admitted. Doc. 29-31.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At approximately 6:30 p.m. on March 22, 2023, Officer Harold Echols^[1] with the Independence, Missouri Police Department (“IPD”) received a phone call from IPD Detective Lonnie Pfeiffer.^[2] Hearing Transcript (hereinafter “Tr.”) (Doc. 31) at 4, 7-9, 34. Detective Pfeiffer informed Officer Echols that as he was driving by the Staybridge Motel's parking lot, he observed the driver of a white pickup truck rummaging through another truck's bed. Tr. at 9, 13, 34-37. The white pickup truck's (hereinafter, “truck”) license plates were covered with duct tape, and the driver, a white male, was wearing a surgical mask.^[3] Tr. at 9, 35-36. Detective Pfeiffer asked for Officer Echols's assistance in contacting and identifying the driver and “see[ing] if he was possibly responsible for some of the other break-ins in the area.” Tr. at 9. Detective Pfeiffer did not indicate to Officer Echols that he saw Defendant take anything from or break into the truck. Tr. at 36.

2. The Staybridge Motel is located half a block away from Officer Echols's office, which is a police substation attached to the Independence Center Shopping Mall. Tr. at 5, 7. Crimes commonly occurring near his office are shoplifting and property crimes. Tr. at 5-6. Officer Echols knew vehicle break-ins had occurred in parking lots in the area, including in Staybridge Motel's parking lot. Tr. at 6, 9.

3. Detective Pfeiffer followed the truck to QuikTrip on 39th Street^[4] in Independence, which is roughly two or three blocks from the Staybridge Motel. Tr. at 10, 12. The driver, later identified as Defendant, parked his truck near a gas pump. Tr. at 31, 36. Defendant then removed the duct tape from the license plates. Tr. at 12, 31, 36. The truck's license plate number was provided to dispatch. Tr. at 12, 36-37.

4. As Officer Echols was driving to the QuikTrip, dispatch stated the truck was registered to Defendant with an address of 1519 South Appleton. Tr. at 12-14, 37, 39, 47; Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:41:07 - 18:41:21.^[5] Dispatch also mentioned something about “a lot of suspicious activity on Appleton.” Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:41:17 - 18:41:21.^[6]

5. Officer Echols recognized the address because he received complaints from neighbors and other officers about stolen automobiles at the address, stolen items being recovered from the property, disturbances at the property, and police pursuits from the address. Tr. at 14-15, 38, 50, 52. In fact, he testified he recognized the address dispatch provided because he “was in the process of dealing with that address.” Tr. at 52. Officer Echols, however, admitted he had never been to the address, and he was not familiar with Defendant. Tr. at 37-38, 53. Officer Echols could not recall that any of the complaints regarding the address involved Defendant or any other specific person. Tr. at 53.

6. At 6:41 p.m., Officer Echols arrived at the QuikTrip in his patrol car. Tr. at 10-12; Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:41:29 - 18:41:49. When Officer Echols arrived, Defendant was inside. Tr. at 15. At 6:42 p.m., Officer Echols entered QuikTrip.^[7] Tr. at 17-18; Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:42:18 - 18:42:19.

He walked to the left portion of the store and contacted Defendant.^[8] Tr. at 18; Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:42:19 - 18:42:26. At the time, Defendant had food in his hand and was standing near the fountain drink area and a cookie display. Tr. at 19, 40-42, 44. Officer Echols observed Defendant had a mask, although, during the hearing, he could not recall if the mask was covering Defendant's face. Tr. at 46-47. Officer Echols informed Defendant of the reason for the contact and the information he received from Detective Pfeiffer. Tr. at 19, 42-43. According to Officer Echols, Defendant “started to argue about the calls for service or the reason why.” Tr. at 19.

7. At that point, Officer Echols asked Defendant if he had any weapons on his person, and Defendant stated he had none. Tr. at 19. During the hearing, Officer Echols testified he asked Defendant if he could do a quick frisk to ensure there were no weapons. Tr. at 19. However, Officer Echols also agreed with Government counsel's depiction of what transpired - that is, he “advised” Defendant that he was “going to frisk him for weapons.” Tr. at 21.^[9] According to Officer Echols, Defendant “never said anything that was counter to [the officer] making the request or even wanting to frisk” him, was cooperative, allowed the officer to frisk him for weapons, did not have a problem with being frisked, did not protest or say no, and never said anything indicating opposition to the frisk. Tr. at 19, 21, 43.

8. Officer Echols testified he had multiple reasons for wanting to frisk Defendant. Tr. at 19-20. First, Defendant was observed rummaging through another truck's bed in the Staybridge motel parking lot. Tr. at 9, 19-20. While rummaging through the other truck's bed, Defendant's license plates were covered with duct tape, and he was wearing a surgical mask. Tr. at 19-20. This information led Officer Echols to believe Defendant was “car prowling,” which is often directly related to breaking into and/or stealing vehicles. Tr. at 19-21. Second, Defendant was associated with an address known for suspicious and criminal activities, and stolen vehicles were recovered from the address. Tr. at 19-20. Third, Officer Echols testified he “sustained life-altering injuries not frisking people, not detaining people appropriately.” Tr. at 20. Finally, when approaching an individual inside a store who was suspected of engaging in possible criminal activity, it was Officer Echols's “practice” to frisk the individual. Tr. at 21.

9. Officer Echols frisked Defendant and found no weapons. Tr. at 21-22, 43, 45. However, he felt and recognized the crinkle of a cellophane wrapper in the front pocket of Defendant's hoodie. Tr. at 22, 43-44. According to Officer Echols, the wrapper was identical to an oversized cookie Defendant had in his hand. Tr. at 22. Although Defendant said he was going to pay for the cookie, Officer Echols believed Defendant was in the process of shoplifting. Tr. at 2223, 44-45. He handcuffed Defendant for officer safety, to prevent Defendant from leaving, and to await the arrival of additional officers. Tr. at 23-24, 43, 45-46. According to Officer Echols, Defendant was “detained” at that time. Tr. at 23, 45. Officer Echols also removed the cookie from Defendant's pocket. Tr. at 22-23, 43-44.

10. During his interaction with Defendant inside QuikTrip, Officer Echols was not aware of Detective Pfeiffer's location. Tr. at 24, 45-46. He believed he was the only officer in Defendant's immediate vicinity. Tr. at 24.

11. At 6:43 p.m., Officer Echols escorted Defendant out of the store and to the front sidewalk. Tr. at 24-25; Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:43:35 - 18:43:50. At the time, Defendant was wearing a surgical medical mask under his chin. Tr. at 25; Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:43:41 - 18:47:08. Officer Echols asked Defendant if he had anything with his name on it. Tr. at 25-26. Defendant said he had a credit card in his pocket. Tr. at 26, 47. 12. Officer Echols reached into Defendant's front pockets and located the credit card. Tr. at 26-27, 48; Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:44:17 - 18:44:21. According to Officer Echols, a small baggie containing a white, powdery, crystal-like substance “was attached . . . or stuck to” the credit card. Tr. at 27-28, 49-51; Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:44:19 - 18:44:21. At no time while Officer Echols searched through Defendant's pockets to retrieve the credit card did Defendant, who appeared to be leaning against a pallet of water, physically resist the officer's actions. Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:44:09 - 18:44:43.

13. Defendant told Officer Echols the substance was not a big deal and was for personal use. Tr. at 27. Based on his training and experience, Officer Echols believed the baggie contained a controlled substance. Tr. at 27-28, 49. Defendant was placed under arrest for possessing a controlled substance, placed in Officer Echols's patrol car, and transported to IPD. Tr. at 28-30, 49; Gov't Ex. 1 at 18:47:07 - 18:48:04.

14. Pursuant to IPD's policy, an officer is authorized to tow a vehicle left on private property if the driver is taken into custody, the vehicle is left unattended, and the vehicle's owner or other responsible party cannot take immediate custody of the vehicle. Gov't Ex. 2 at 4. If an officer has a vehicle towed, IPD policy requires an inventory search be conducted. Gov't Ex. 2 at 2.

15. Officer Echols had Defendant's truck towed...