United States v. Brown

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JASON BROWN, ET AL.

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 21-25-JWD-RLB-1

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

July 24, 2023

RULING AND ORDER

JOHN W. deGRAVELLES JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Suppress (Doc. 35) filed by Defendant Jason Brown (“Defendant”). The Government opposes the motion. (Doc. 37.) An evidentiary hearing was held on April 26, 2023 (Doc. 62), after which both parties submitted post-hearing briefs, (Docs. 65, 66, 67). Further argument is not necessary. The Court has carefully considered the law, the facts in the record, and the arguments and submissions of the parties and is prepared to rule. For the following reasons Defendant's motion is denied.

I. Background

A. Overview

The instant motion centers on two main encounters between Defendant and law enforcement. The first occurred on November 2, 2018, the day Defendant was arrested. The second occurred on November 5, 2018, when Defendant was interviewed by telephone after being released on bail.

As a result of the information and evidence developed in these encounters, a federal grand jury returned an Indictment charging Defendant with the following offenses: on Count One, conspiracy to produce, use, and traffic in counterfeit access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and § 1029(a)(1); on Count Two, possession of fifteen or more counterfeit access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3); and on Count Three, illegal possession of device making equipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(4). (Doc. 1 at 1-6.) Defendant's co-conspirator, Misty Campbell, is also charged in Counts One and Two of the Indictment. (Id. at 1-5.) Thereafter, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized the day of his arrest as well as statements he made on the day of his arrest and during his subsequent telephone interview. (See Doc. 35.)

At the April 26, 2023, hearing, East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office (“EBRSO”) Deputies David Hyer and Kyle Toups and EBRSO Detective Kevin Waguespack testified for the Government. Defendant did not present any witnesses. The relevant facts are largely taken from the testimony developed at the suppression hearing. Where exhibits are referenced, those exhibits were admitted into evidence at the hearing. (See Exhibits Log, Doc. 63.) Where the parties' briefs are cited for particular facts, the Court has reviewed the evidence-including the testimony from the hearing-and confirmed that that those facts are supported by evidence in the record.

As a general matter, the Court notes that the officers' testimony is uncontradicted. In any event, the Court listened to the testimony of the officers, observed their demeanor on the stand, and the Court found them highly credible.

B. Relevant Facts

On November 2, 2018, EBRSO Deputy Hyer was dispatched to the Wyndham Garden Hotel located in Baton Rouge in response to a theft. (Hear. Tr., Doc. 64 at 6: 14-24; see also Gov. Ex. 1, EBRSO Incident Report by Hyer at 1.) More specifically, the complainant-a hotel security officer-reported that certain guests had paid for their room with a stolen credit card. (Doc. 37 at 2.) Hotel staff became aware of the theft after receiving a call from the true cardholder, who explained that he had the credit card with him in Illinois, but that it had been used without his or his wife's consent to rent the hotel room. (Id. at 2-3; Gov. Ex. 1, EBRSO Incident Report by Hyer at 28.) According to hotel employees, including hotel security, the potential suspects at that time included two females whose vehicle was described as an SUV. (Hear. Tr., Doc. 64 at 7: 18-20.) Hotel security led Deputy Hyer to the suspects' room; Hyer testified that the room was completely empty, despite the fact that it had initially been rented over twelve hours earlier. (Id. at 7: 12-15.) Because the occupants were not in their room at that time, Deputy Hyer asked hotel staff to contact the EBRSO once the occupants returned. (Id. at 7: 20-22.)

Shortly thereafter, the hotel security officer phoned the EBRSO, advising officers that the suspects had returned and that he had detained one of the individuals, a female later identified as D.C. (Doc. 37 at 3.) When Deputy Hyer arrived back at the hotel, the security officer had D.C. “pinned up against the SUV that [the two suspects had] arrived in.” (Hear. Tr., Doc. 64 at 8: 14-17.) The security officer told Deputy Hyer that D.C.'s “associate”-later identified as Misty Campbell-had struck him with a liquor bottle and fled on foot towards Interstate 10. (Doc. 37 at 3.)

Deputy Hyer took custody of D.C., advised her of her Miranda rights, and proceeded to interview her, during which time he noted the smell of marijuana. (Id.; see also Hear. Tr., Doc. 64 at 9: 15-19.) Deputy Hyer then “asked her if she had marijuana on her person.” (Hear. Tr., Doc. 64 at 9: 19-20.) D.C. responded that she did not, “but she described in a particular location within the vehicle where she did have marijuana.” (Id. at 9: 20-22.)

Without a warrant, Deputy Hyer entered the vehicle and retrieved the marijuana from one of the “door pocket[s]” where D.C. stated it was located. (Id. at 10: 6-8, 35: 12-13.) According to Deputy Hyer's testimony, while he was retrieving the marijuana, he “looked to [his] left” and “immediately saw a credit card skimming re-encoding device plainly right on the back floorboard of the vehicle.” (Id. at 10: 11-13.) He removed the credit card skimming device and the marijuana from the vehicle. (Id. at 10: 22-23.) He also observed “dozens of credit cards that were strewed about the floor, [ ] a laptop[,] and multiple department store bags.” (Id. at 10: 17-19.)

Thereafter, Deputy Hyer continued questioning D.C., who told him that “she had traveled down with the other female and [her] boyfriend from the Chicago area.” (Id. at 11: 8-11.) Based on this and other information Deputy Hyer learned-as discussed below-he testified that, in addition to the “financial crimes aspect” of the investigation, he grew suspicious the officers may be “dealing with prostitution at the minimum, but also potentially human trafficking.” (Id. at 12: 4-12.)

1. Identification of Misty Campbell

While Deputy Hyer was investigating the theft at the hotel, another EBRSO deputy-Kyle Toups-was dispatched to assist with a car accident that had occurred near the hotel and Interstate 10. (Doc. 37 at 3.) At this time, Deputy Toups was notified that one of the female suspects involved in the theft at the hotel had fled by foot in the direction of Interstate 10. (Id. at 3-4; see also Hear. Tr., Doc. 64 at 15: 19-21.) Deputy Toups asked those on the accident scene whether they had seen a female fitting the suspect's description, and “one of the drivers from the crash” responded “yes, . . . she's inside my vehicle.” (Hear. Tr., Doc. 64 at 51: 19-20, 52: 5-8.) Deputy Toups then asked the driver “if he could open the vehicle so [Deputy Toups] could check and [the driver] agreed to.” (Id. at 52: 21-22.) When the driver opened his vehicle, Deputy Toups found Misty Campbell “crouched down inside the vehicle.” (Id. at 52: 21-25.)

Campbell was then detained and taken back to the hotel by another deputy for questioning. (Doc. 37 at 4; see also Gov. Ex. 4, EBRSO Incident Report by Toups at 3.) At the hotel, the security officer identified Campbell as the woman he had seen in the SUV who had battered him with a liquor bottle. (Doc. 37 at 4.) Once Campbell arrived at the hotel, Deputy Hyer advised her of her Miranda rights and began questioning her; Campbell provided false information about her name and date of birth and “refused to cooperate with the investigation.” (Hear. Tr., Doc. 64 at 16: 15-23.)

Subsequently, Campbell was placed under arrest for resisting an officer and searched. (Gov. Ex. 1, EBRSO Incident Report by Hyer at 29.) During the search of Campbell's person, Deputy Hyer found a fraudulent driver's license “and more than a dozen credit cards (most of which did not have her name on them), which were later determined to be loaded with different data than [that] displayed on the card[s].” (Id.) “Based on the nature of the crimes being investigated,” EBRSO Detectives Perry Frith and Kevin Waguespack with the Financial Crimes Division were notified and dispatched to the scene. (Id.)

2. Defendant Meets Deputy Toups

Deputy Toups remained at the scene of the car accident near Interstate 10 after Campbell was taken back to the hotel by another deputy. (See Hear. Tr., Doc. 64 at 53: 8-16.) At some point thereafter, a man later identified as Defendant Jason Brown, “approached the scene and . . . seemed really interested in the crash[.]” (Id. at 53: 17-21.) Defendant told Deputy Toups that the driver involved in the crash whom Toups had previously spoken to was his relative; Defendant and Deputy Toups engaged in “small talk” and Defendant told Toups he was “having a bad night” because his girlfriend (later identified as D.C.) had just been arrested for renting their hotel room with a stolen credit card. (Id. at 53: 21-25, 54: 1-4.)

Defendant concluded his conversation with Deputy Toups and began walking toward the hotel, at which time Deputy Toups notified the officers investigating the theft at the hotel that he suspected Defendant was involved in the theft based on the information he had just received. (Id. at 54: 7-11.)

3. Search and Detention of Defendant

At this point, Deputy Hyer-still at the hotel-had just received “radio traffic from Deputy Toups” regarding his suspicions about the male walking back toward the hotel when he saw Defendant “walking . . . past the squad cars and down the sidewalk.” (Id. at 17: 7-9, 13-14.) Deputy Hyer then spoke to Defendant, stating “something to the...