United States v. Coleman

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEVE COLEMAN, Defendant.

16-CR-668 JAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

August 26, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On April 25, 2016, Defendant Steve Coleman filed a motion to suppress challenging both the validity of the January 22, 2016 warrant authorizing the search of his property and the manner of the warrant's execution. See MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II AND MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALL FRUITS OF SEARCH, FOR ALL PURPOSES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TRIAL TESTIMONY, IMPEACHMENT, REBUTTAL, CALCULATION OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES, AND SENTENCING CONSIDERATION (Doc. No. 20) ("Motion"). On July 19, 2016, the Court entered a MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Doc. No. 32) rejecting Defendant's attack on the validity of the warrant and reserving ruling on Defendant's claim that officers grossly exceeded the terms of the warrant when they conducted a lengthy search of his property, involving many officers and the thorough documentation of Defendant's home and belongings. Having considered the parties' initial arguments,¹ the supplemental briefing, see DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF CONCERNING THE MANNER OF EXECUTION OF THE STATE SEARCH WARRANT (Doc. No. 34) andUNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING (Doc. No. 38), as well as the relevant law, the Court will deny Defendant's request to suppress all of the evidence seized during the January 22, 2016 search.

Background

The facts are largely undisputed. On January 21, 2016, New Mexico State Police Officer William Radasa was dispatched to Poor Farm Road in Thoreau, New Mexico to investigate claims that Defendant Steve Coleman, a felon, had shot his neighbor's dogs. See SEARCH WARRANT (Doc. No. 21-1 at 3, 5). During the course of the investigation, Defendant admitted to the police that he had used his wife's gun to shoot at his neighbor's dogs in order to protect his two female puppies. Id. at 4-5. Given this admission, Officer Radasa arrested Defendant and obtained a warrant to search Defendant's property - a 423.5 acre ranch - for firearms and other evidence of the dog shooting. Id. at 5. The warrant authorized the seizure of: (1) fingerprints and footprints, (2) DNA evidence, (3) firearms, (4) ammunition, (5) firearm documentation, (6) dog remains, (7) photographs of the deceased dogs, (8) alcoholic beverages, and (9) electronic and media equipment. Id. at 2-3. In addition, the warrant allowed for the "documentation of the herein-described premises, vehicle(s), person(s) and/or the herein-described item(s), to be seized, by means of measurement, photography, videography and/or any other means deemed necessary by law enforcement and/or person(s) assisting law enforcement." Id. at 3.

On June 14, 2016, the Court held an evidentiary hearing in order, among other things, to hear testimony regarding the execution of the warrant to search Defendant's property. At this hearing, Sergeant Shawn Martin with the New Mexico State Police testified regarding the search. Based on this testimony, the Court makes the following findings of fact under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(d):

1. On January 22, 2016, New Mexico State Police officers executed the warrant that Officer Radasa obtained to search Defendant's property. TRANSCRIPT OF JUNE 14, 2016 HEARING (Doc. No. 28 at 43:13-20) ("Transcript").

2. Sergeant Shawn Martin, the duty sergeant for January 22, 2016, acted as the search supervisor. Id. at 79:15-16; 83:18-22. Sergeant Martin, along with Lieutenant Troy Velasquez, decided who was allowed to enter the property during the search. Id. at 84:12-17.

3. The search lasted for roughly 13.5 hours, beginning at 10:30 a.m. and ending around midnight. Id. at 80:19-20; 99:14-19.²

4. During this time, officers searched Defendant's main residence and all of the buildings located on his 423.5 acre property, uncovering more than 65 weapons in the process. Id. at 99:22-25.

5. While it is not entirely clear how many officers participated in the search, the crime scene log and police reports submitted to the Court confirm that at least 20 New Mexico State Police officers assisted in the execution of the warrant.³

6. In addition, the crime scene log shows that three animal control officers, one OMI agent, two or possibly three Navajo Nation representatives, three United States Fish and Wildlife agents, three Gallup Police Department officers, and a handful of otherunidentified officers visited the scene, for a total of approximately 33-36 officers on the scene during the search.⁴

7. Five members of the McKinley County District Attorney's Office were also present during part of the search, which is atypical. Id. at 89:10-14; 91:3-6.

8. Sergeant Martin explained that he called the "Navajo Nation prosecutor" and invited representatives from the Navajo Nation to the scene because he observed "traditional artifacts" in the house that he believed "should not be in the possession of a non-Native American." Id. at 84:18-20; 96:18-97:3. When the Navajo Nation representatives arrived, Sergeant Martin told them what he had seen and allowed them to view and "verify" the objects in the home. Id. at 97:10-13. He instructed the Navajo Nation representatives that they could only look at the items and were "not going to help [the New Mexico State Police] get anything." Id. at 14-16. He explained that if they saw something incriminating they would have to go through their own process to obtain a warrant. Id. at 16-18.

9. The representatives from the Navajo Nation brought the three United States Fish and Wildlife agents with them. Sergeant Martin also allowed the Fish and Wildlife agents to be on the scene. Id. at 85:1-2; 93:15-21.

10. Sergeant Martin also invited three members from the Gallup Police Department to view the scene. Id. at 91:12-92:5. This came about because the Gallup Police Department called Lieutenant Troy Velasquez, Sergeant Martin's supervisor, and"advised . . . that they were also investigating a couple of burglaries" with Defendant as a suspect. Id. at 91:25-92:2. Based on this information, Sergeant Martin allowed three Gallup Police officers into Defendant's home. Id. at 92:3-5.

11. Finally, Sergeant Martin indicated that he contacted (or had another New Mexico State Police officer contact) the FBI and McKinley County animal control because (1) he believed there was a potential federal angle to the case and (2) there was an animal involved so he was required to notify animal control. Id. at 81:4-8; 93:11-14.

12. Sergeant Martin directed the New Mexico State Police officers to photograph the entre scene as is common practice. Id. at 14-16. He encouraged them to take as many photographs as possible from the front to the back of the residence because "there never can be too many photographs." Id. at 7-12.

13. In accordance with this directive, officers took more than 1,000 photographs of Defendant's home, belongings, and property.⁵

14. The photographs taken by officers included pictures of the inside of the refrigerator, the interior of an underwear drawer, the walls of the shower, family pictures on the hallway walls, the food in a microwave, a partially loaded dishwasher, clothes sitting in a washing machine, jewelry on the bathroom counter, and money in a wallet.⁶

15. All of these items were exposed during the course of the search. Officers did not move things around in order to take photographs. Id. at 82:17-19.

16. On February 5, 2016, New Mexico States Police officers Steven King and Devin Largo were assigned to investigate allegations that Defendant was involved in several burglaries. (Doc. No. 35-1 at 4). Officers King and Largo met with Ernest Bulow, one of the alleged victims, on February 8, 2016. Id. at 4-5. Officers King and Largo showed Mr. Bulow all of the photos taken of Defendant's main residence during the January 22, 2016 search. Id. at 5. Mr. Bulow identified several items in the photographs that he claims were stolen from his home in 2005. Id. at 4-7.

17. Following a similar procedure, New Mexico State Police showed pictures of Defendant's residence to Elvina Emerson, another Gallup resident who contacted the police claiming to have been robbed by Defendant in 2006. Id. at 8-9. She also identified alleged stolen property in the photographs of Defendant's home. Id.

18. Based on the statements of Mr. Bulow and Ms. Emerson, on February 26, 2016, Officer King obtained a warrant to search Defendant's home for the allegedly stolen property. Id. at 3-10.

19. Gallup police officers subsequently showed the January 22, 2016 photographs of Defendant's residence to other Gallup residents, Jeff and Vickie Shaffer, Martin Link, and Steve Westergom, who suspected Defendant of stealing from them in 1996, 2015, and 2000 respectively. (Doc. No. 35-2 at 6-8). After these individuals identified stolen property in the photographs, police obtained a second warrant, dated April 26, 2016, to search Defendant's home for stolen goods. Id. at 10.

20. During the two corresponding searches of Defendant's residence, police seized 27 items of personal property. (Doc. No. 35-1 at 12; Doc. No. 35-3 at 3).

21. Defendant was charged with receiving stolen property. (Doc. No. 36-1 at 3).

22. On April 29, 2016, The Independent, a Gallup newspaper, published a story about Defendant with 39 color photographs that the paper identified as "police evidence photos taken at the home of Steve Coleman in January." See Defendant's Exhibit 32.

Discussion

In his Motion, Defendant initially argued that officers' manner of executing the warrant violated his constitutional rights "as demonstrated by the photographs, the large number of law enforcement personnel, and the time frame of the search." Motion at 19. Defendant did not, however, explain why complete suppression, including suppression of the firearms otherwise lawfully seized under the warrant, was the appropriate remedy for the allegedly unreasonable length of the search, number of officers involved, and...