United States v. Chavez

625 F.Supp.3d 760

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Joseph CHAVEZ, Defendant.

No. 1:21-CR-00750-1

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Signed September 1, 2022

AUSA, William R. Hogan, Jr., Assistant US Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL, Pretrial Services, for Plaintiff.

Jeffrey Jay Levine, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Edmond E. Chang, United States District Judge

In November 2020, during a traffic stop, two Chicago Police Department officers found a firearm underneath the passenger seat of a Dodge sedan—the passenger was Joseph Chavez. R. 39, Mot. Suppress ¶ 8.¹ Chavez is now charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); R. 1, Indictment. Chavez moves to dismiss the charges, arguing that his alleged possession of the firearm did not substantially affect interstate commerce. R. 40, Mot. Dismiss at 1. Chavez also moves to suppress the firearm because (1) there was no reason for the initial traffic stop; (2) the officers' stop-and-frisk was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment; (3) there was no probable cause to search the car; and (4) Chavez was arrested without probable cause. R. 39, Mot. Suppress ¶ 3. For the reasons discussed in this Opinions, both motions are denied.

I. Background

For purposes of deciding the suppression motion, the facts narrated here are undisputed. The factual details are based on video recording from officer body cameras, the arrest report, and the parties' briefing. On November 1, 2020, around 8:10 p.m., Chicago Police Officers Christopher Flores and Dominique Conner were patrolling in the Brighton Park neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois. R. 56, Gov't Resp. to Mot. Suppress at 1-2. They stopped a Dodge Dart after the driver failed to signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet before making a turn—a violation of § 9-40-200 of the Chicago Municipal Code.² See R. 56, Gov't Exh. 4, Arrest Report at 3.

After the car stopped, Officer Flores approached the driver's side and spoke with the driver, Marlene Johns. R. 52, Gov't Exh. 2, Flores Video at 2:00-4:25. Flores asked Johns for her license; Johns responded that she did not have her physical license on her but would provide her name and address. Id. at 2:00-2:50. She told Flores that she was the aunt of the car's owner, John Perez, who was seated behind her. Id. at 3:50-3:56, 4:20-4:25. She also reported that Joseph Chavez, who sat in the front passenger seat, was Perez's father. Id.

Meanwhile, Officer Conner approached the sedan's front passenger door and saw an open bottle of beer between Chavez's legs. R. 53, Gov't Exh. 2, Conner Video at 1:55-2:10. Conner asked Chavez for his identification and whether there was anything else in the car besides the open container. Id. at 2:10-2:12. Chavez responded no. Id. at 2:13. Conner then replied, "So, if we take you guys out of this car and search this car, we not goin' find nothin' in it?" Id. at 2:15-2:17. Chavez shook his head in response, id. at 2:17-2:21, so Conner again asked Chavez if there was anything in the car. Id. at 2:20-2:30. Chavez said nothing. Id. Instead, Chavez opened the glovebox and handed the registration papers to Perez, who handed them to Officer Flores. Id.

Moments later, the officers directed the occupants out of the car. Flores Video at 3:30, 4:36; Conner Video at 3:20. After patting Perez down, Flores moved Johns and Perez to the rear of the sedan. Flores Video at 4:40-5:00. He handcuffed Perez's right wrist to Johns' left wrist. Id. at 5:12-5:23. Conner also patted Chavez down and moved him to the rear of the sedan with Johns and Perez. Conner Video at 3:40-4:45. After handcuffing Chavez's left wrist to Johns' wrist at the rear of the car, Conner told all three occupants that they were being detained but were not under arrest. Id. at 4:50-5:03. Conner stayed with them and patted Johns down, id. at 5:38-5:52, while Officer Flores began searching the sedan. Flores Video at 5:27; Conner Video at 5:10.

As Flores searched the car, Officer Conner spoke with Johns and Perez, including telling them why the sedan was stopped and was being searched. Conner Video at 5:00-7:55. Conner said that Johns had failed to signal within the 100 feet before Johns made a right turn at the intersection. Id. at 7:24-7:32. In response, Johns apologized and said she thought it was a stop sign, not a traffic light. Id. at 7:32-7:41. Conner also told Johns that the officers directed the occupants out of the vehicle because they discovered an open container of beer in Chavez's lap. Id. at 7:50-7:56.

During Officer Flores' search, he saw two open beer bottles in the console cup holders of the sedan and found a loaded .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol (later identified as a Springfield Armory model XD-40 handgun). Flores Video at 6:30-8:18; see Indictment at 1. Flores then handcuffed Chavez behind his back at the rear of the sedan. Id. at 8:30-8:37. Seeing this, Johns asked, "What's going on?" and asked Chavez directly, "What did you have on you?" Conner Video at 8:17-8:25. Chavez protested, saying that the vehicle was not his and instead belonged to Perez. Id. at 8:26-8:30. Officer Conner responded, "Is that why you were shakin' when we pulled you over, man? . . . I saw you visibly shakin' when we pulled you over bro." Conner Video at 8:33-8:40. Perez then said to Chavez, "Don't blame me, man", and Officer Flores told Chavez, "I'm about to show you why you were shakin." Id. at 8:40-8:42.

Flores then removed the pistol from underneath Chavez's passenger seat and held it up so all the occupants could see it. Flores Video at 8:50-9:10. During the search and immediately after, Perez exclaimed to Chavez, "What did you have on you? C'mon man! I'm supposed to be in school, man." Conner Video at 8:42-8:50. Johns also exclaimed to Chavez, "Are you kidding me? Why the fuck would you have that [gesturing at the gun] bro?" Id. at 8:54-9:14. Officer Conner assured both Perez and Johns that neither of them would be in trouble. Id. at 8:47-8:52. Conner also repeatedly told Chavez that he was "literally shaking" when Conner had earlier approached him. Id. at 9:50-10:05. The entire traffic stop lasted around 10 minutes. See Flores Video; Conner Video.

After Chavez's arrest, Officer Conner attested to a report describing the traffic violation that led to stopping the sedan, the open container found in Chavez's lap, his nervous behavior, and the ensuing search and seizure of the pistol underneath Chavez' seat. Arrest Report at 3. Chavez has been charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Chavez now moves to suppress the firearm³ and to dismiss the charges.

II. Analysis

A. Motion to Dismiss

First up is the motion to dismiss the indictment. To challenge the sufficiency of an indictment, a defendant may file a pretrial motion (so long as the motion can be decided without a trial on the merits). Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3). An indictment "must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . . ." Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). To be legally sufficient, an indictment must accomplish three things: "(1) state the elements of the offense charged; (2) fairly inform the defendant of the nature of the charge so that he may prepare a defense; and (3) enable the defendant to plead an acquittal or conviction as a bar against future prosecutions for the same offense." United States v. Khan, 937 F.3d 1042, 1049 (7th Cir. 2019). An indictment should align with the words of the statute, if the statute specifies the elements that constitute the offense. United States v. Anderson, 280 F.3d 1121, 1124 (7th Cir. 2002).

Chavez first argues that the indictment against him should be dismissed because the charging statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is purportedly unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. See Mot. to Dismiss ¶¶ 3-10, 14-15. Section 922(g)(1) makes it "unlawful for any person who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" to possess "any firearm or ammunition." As Chavez acknowledges, see Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 7, the Seventh Circuit has consistently rejected challenges to § 922(g) under the Commerce Clause, because "the jurisdictional element of § 922(g) provides the required nexus with interstate commerce." United States v. Van Sach, 458 F.3d 694, 703 (7th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up) (citing cases).⁴

Chavez advances arguments that do not come close to overcoming this authority. He cites United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) to contend that "possession of a firearm is not economic activity that has any impact on interstate commerce[.]" Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 2. But this claim has been repeatedly rejected by the Seventh Circuit, which binds this Court. In United States v. Sarraj, the Seventh Circuit explained that it has "specifically addressed whether the Supreme Court's Lopez decision narrowed the scope of section 922(g)(1), and [the Seventh Circuit has] repeatedly found that it did not." 665 F.3d 916, 921 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing cases).

Chavez next contends that his actions did not affect interstate commerce. Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 10. He asserts that he was never alleged to "have purchased the weapon, offered the weapon for sale or otherwise exchange it for value." Id. The government, however, need not allege those elements to establish the required interstate connection under § 922(g)(1). Instead, the Court may infer that the gun traveled in interstate commerce "merely by evidence that the gun was manufactured outside the state in which it was possessed[.]" United States v. Humphreys, 468 F.3d 1051, 1053 (7th Cir. 2006). Chavez's knowledge of whether the gun traveled interstate is irrelevant. Sarraj, 665 F.3d at 921. He "need not have been involved with bringing the gun into the state" nor possess the gun soon after it traveled across state...