United States v. Brown

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TRAVIS BROWN

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 22-69

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

March 8, 2023

SECTION “G”

ORDER AND REASONS

NANNETTE JCLIVETTE BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendant Travis Brown's (“Brown”) Motion to Suppress Evidence.^[1] Brown argues that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights when law enforcement officers searched the vehicle he was occupying without a warrant.^[2] Therefore, Brown argues that the Taurus G2C 9mm firearm recovered during the search must be suppressed.^[3] The government opposes the motion and argues that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.^[4]The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion on February 9, 2023.^[5] For the reasons discussed in detail below, the police had reasonable suspicion to stop Brown and perform a protective sweep of the vehicle. Accordingly, having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the evidence and testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing, the record, and the applicable law, the Court denies the motion.

I. Background

A. Procedural Background

On April 21, 2022, Brown was charged by an Indictment in the Eastern District of Louisiana with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).^[6] This matter is scheduled for a jury trial to begin on April 17, 2023.^[7]

On January 6, 2023, Brown filed the instant Motion to Suppress Evidence.^[8] On January 27, 2023, the government filed an opposition to the motion.^[9] On February 3, 2023, Brown filed a reply brief in further support of the motion.^[10] The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion on February 9, 2023.^[11] At the hearing, the government called Officer Jonathan Hirdes and Officer Troy Yarish, and the defense called Officer Anton Huguley.^[12]

B. Factual Background^[13]

Brown's felon in possession of a firearm charge arises out of an encounter with the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) that occurred on December 5, 2021 at approximately 1:15 AM.^[14] That morning, a New Orleans 911 dispatcher received a call from an individual who identified himself as “Michael.”^[15] Michael stated that he had just left the East Side Cash and Carry on the corner of Chef Menteur Highway and Werner Drive.^[16] According to Michael, he saw a black male wearing a red ski mask pulled over his face, white t-shirt, and dark pants jump out of a car “waiving a gun around.”^[17] Michael stated that the man was standing by a white Dodge Magnum, and he saw a woman sitting inside the car.^[18] Michael stated that he was not in danger as he had left the location.^[19]

Following the call, Officers Yarish and Huguley of the NOPD were dispatched to investigate “an aggravated assault” at the East Side Cash and Carry.^[20] Officer Hirdes was also dispatched as an assisting unit.^[21] When they were dispatched, the officers received a brief synopsis of the report and a description of the perpetrator, but they did not hear the 911 call.^[22]

Officers Yarish and Huguley were first to arrive at the scene.^[23] When they arrived, they observed Brown sitting in the driver's seat and a woman sitting in the passenger's seat of a white Dodge Magnum parked in front of the building.^[24] Officer Yarish testified that both Brown and the vehicle matched the description they had been given from the dispatcher.^[25] The officers ordered Brown to show his hands and exit the vehicle.^[26] Brown complied with these commands and exited the vehicle without incident.^[27] As Brown exited the vehicle, the front driver's side door was left open.^[28] Officer Yarish then began to place Brown in handcuffs.^[29]

As Officer Yarish was placing Brown in handcuffs, responding unit Officer Hirdes arrived at the scene.^[30] Officer Hirdes stood at the exterior of the open driver's side door, used a flashlight to look into the interior of the car, and directed the female passenger to step out of the vehicle.^[31]Officer Huguley then informed Brown that they had stopped him because they had received a call regarding an aggravated assault.^[32] Officer Huguley told Brown that they were going to advise him of his rights and “ask him any question.”^[33] Officer Huguley informed Brown that “just because he was in handcuffs the handcuffs could come right off” after they looked into the call.^[34] At this point, Brown was only being detained; he had not been placed under arrest.^[35]

Shortly thereafter, Officer Yarish finished handcuffing Brown, read Brown his Miranda rights, and escorted Brown to the back of the police vehicle.^[36] As soon as Officer Yarish escorted Brown away from the Dodge Magnum, Officer Hirdes moved to stand in the space between the open driver-side door and the vehicle.^[37] Officer Hirdes then ducked his arm and upper body inside the car, adjusted the volume on the radio, and exited the vehicle.^[38] Officer Hirdes testified that he proceeded to do a “quick scan” or “protective sweep” of the vehicle for a firearm because the 911 caller had reported a firearm.^[39] According to the testimony of Officers Hirdes and Huguley, a protective sweep is always performed in this type of investigation for the safety of the officers and the public.^[40] Officer Yarish also testified that the officers' primary duty was to secure the scene.^[41]

Officer Hirdes then went to the front of the vehicle and spoke to the female passenger.^[42]Officers Hirdes and Huguley both testified that they did not detain the passenger because they did not have any information that she was a perpetrator of any crime.^[43] Officer Hirdes went to the passenger side of the vehicle, opened the front passenger's door, and shined his flashlight into the vehicle.^[44] Officer Hirdes then walked back to the driver's side of the vehicle, shined his flashlight under the seat, and directed Officer Yarish to “look under the seat.”^[45] Officer Hirdes testified that this was the moment when he discovered the firearm, which was located “three or four inches” underneath the driver's seat.^[46] Officer Hirdes testified that he did not immediately recover the firearm because he did not know if the firearm was possessed legally.^[47]

Officer Huguley then ran Brown's information through docket master and observed that Brown was a convicted felon.^[48] After learning that Brown was a convicted felon from Officer Huguley, Officer Hirdes returned to the vehicle and recovered the firearm.^[49] Thereafter, Brown was placed under arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm.^[50] Officer Huguley informed Brown that he was not being charged with aggravated assault because the 911 caller was not responding to follow-up phone calls from the police.^[51] After the arrest, Officer Huguley wrote a Police Incident Report, which states that the firearm was “located underneath the driver seat of the white Dodge . . . in plain view of the officers.”^[52]

II. Parties' Arguments

A. Brown's Arguments in Support of the Motion

Brown argues that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights when law enforcement officers searched the vehicle he was occupying without a warrant.^[53] Therefore, Brown argues that the Taurus G2C 9mm firearm recovered during the search must be suppressed.^[54]Brown asserts that Officer Hirdes searched the vehicle when he reached his arm and upper body inside to look under the driver's seat.^[55] Since Officer Hirdes did not have a warrant, Brown submits that “the search was presumptively unreasonable, and it is not evident that any exception to the warrant requirement applies.”^[56] Although it is well established that a police officer may seize evidence in plain view, Brown submits that this exception does not apply because the firearm was not in plain view prior to the warrantless search.^[57] Brown asserts that Officer Hirdes was not able to see the firearm before conducting the search because it was completely hidden beneath the driver's seat.^[58] Therefore, Brown argues that the plain view exception does not justify the warrantless seizure of the firearm.^[59]

B. The Government's Arguments in Opposition to the Motion

The government opposes the motion and argues that the NOPD officers lawfully seized the gun from the car in the area where Brown was seated.^[60] The government contends that “[t]he officers had particularized information regarding a crime involving a firearm, a description of the perpetrator, and the vehicle possessed by the perpetrator at the time of the crime.”^[61] Considering that the officers saw a person matching the description of the perpetrator and the vehicle when they arrived at the scene, the government asserts that the officers had “at least reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred and that Brown was the perpetrator of that reported crime.”^[62]

The government asserts that the 911 call led to reasonable suspicion by the officers that would justify an investigatory stop.^[63] The government contends that “[t]he 911 recording demonstrates that the caller was an eyewitness of the event, called just after seeing the person in the red ski mask, white t-shirt, dark pants in a Dodge magnum vehicle, wave a gun at him in the parking lot and utilized the 911 system, going so far as to leave his first name and phone number.”^[64] The government argues that the 911 caller's information was corroborated because, when the officers arrived at the location given by the caller minutes after receiving the call, they discovered a person matching the exact description of the alleged perpetrator, a car matching the description provided, and a female in the car as described by the caller.^[65] Therefore, the government submits that the officers were...