United States v. Coma

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FRANK JOSEPH COMA (1), MICHAEL JOSEPH COMA (2), DAVID PATRICK VALLEY (3), Defendants.

No. 3:22-cr-00044-TMB-MMS

United States District Court, D. Alaska

August 21, 2024

OMNIBUS ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS (DKTS. 109, 168 173)

TIMOTHY M. BURGESS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

The matter comes before the Court on the three Final Reports and Recommendations (“Final R&Rs”) of the Chief Magistrate Judge,^[1]recommending the Court deny Defendant Frank Joseph Coma's (“F. Coma”), Michael Joseph Coma's (“M. Coma”), and David Patrick Valley's (“Valley”) Motions to Suppress (the “Motions”).^[2] F. Coma, M. Coma, and Valley objected to the Initial Reports and Recommendations (“Initial R&Rs”).^[3]The Government objected to a portion of the Initial R&R as to F. Coma^[4] but did not respond to any objections.^[5]The Chief Magistrate Judge addressed the objections in the Final R&Rs.^[6]F. Coma, M. Coma, and Valley then objected to the Final R&Rs,^[7]and Valley also joined F. Coma's and M. Coma's objections to the Final R&Rs.^[8]The Government did not respond to this second set of objections or object to the Final R&Rs.^[9]Valley subsequently filed a motion for de novo review of the Final R&R at Docket 297.^[10] Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Final R&Rs to which objections were filed,^[11]and for the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Valley's Motion at Docket 320 and ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Final R&Rs at Docket 296, 297, and 298. Accordingly, the Motions at Docket 109, 168, and 173 are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and proceedings in this case, relevant portions of which are detailed in the Final R&Rs.^[12]In November 2021, United States Postal Inspection Service Inspector Andrew Grow (“USPIS Grow”) alerted to and isolated a parcel containing controlled substances sent to a U.S. Post Office (“P.O.”) box held by Amanda Pikus (“Pikus”), an incarcerated person, in Kodiak.^[13]A K-9 unit (“K-9 Denali”) responded to the parcel, and law enforcement searched it pursuant to a warrant, finding 11.63 grams of counterfeit “M30” pills believed to contain fentanyl and 59 grams of methamphetamine.^[14]Pursuant to the warrant, law enforcement replaced the controlled substances with a representative sample, an electronic monitoring device, and “Clue Spray,” and arranged a controlled delivery.^[15]

On December 8, 2021, law enforcement officers observed F. Coma and Veronica Naughton (“Naughton”) enter the post office, approach Pikus's P.O. box, exit carrying the subject parcel, and leave in a vehicle driven by Marc Vaudrin (“Vaudrin”).^[16]Officers followed the vehicle to a nearby McDonald's restaurant, Naughton exited the vehicle without the parcel, and F. Coma and Vaudrin continued driving.^[17]While following the vehicle, officers received a “faint alert” from the monitoring device but were unable to determine whether the parcel had been opened.^[18]

Officers continued to follow the vehicle to an apartment complex, where they observed F. Coma exit the vehicle, briefly enter Unit #3 (F. Coma's apartment), exit, and enter Unit #2 (Valley's apartment) appearing to carry a bulky item under his sweatshirt.^[19]Electronic monitoring indicated the parcel was in Unit #2.^[20]

At around 2:57 p.m., officers knocked and announced at Unit #2, and Valley opened the door.^[21]While holding their firearms “at guard”-at waist-level pointed at the ground-officers instructed Valley, F. Coma, and M. Coma to place their hands in the air, stand in a line, and face the outside wall of the apartment, and detained them outside Unit #2 pending a separate search warrant.^[22]Officers then performed a security sweep of Unit #2 and found an opened parcel in a garbage can.^[23]F. Coma, M. Coma, and Valley were separately brought into the bathroom of Unit #2 and their hands were examined with ultraviolet light.^[24] F. Coma's and M. Coma's hands tested positive for Clue Spray, but Valley's did not.^[25]

M. Coma was brought back outside, seated in the back of the patrol car, and officers placed a backpack he was wearing in the front seat.^[26]An officer searched the backpack and found a digital scale, two small “dime” bags, and a cellphone.^[27]M. Coma was arrested and taken into custody.^[28]The officer testified that dime bags and digital scales are utilized for packaging and distributing controlling substances, and that cellphones often contain communications related to drug transactions.^[29]

Officers requested F. Coma provide the keys to Unit #3 under threat that they would forcibly enter Unit #3.^[30]F. Coma provided the keys, and officers searched Unit #3 and found methamphetamine.^[31]Applying for search warrants for Units #2 and #3, officers attested to the preceding events, the presence of methamphetamine in Unit #3, and that F. Coma had consented to the search of Unit #3.^[32]Both warrants were granted, and F. Coma was arrested.^[33]

Valley, F. Coma, and M. Coma were handcuffed until at least 4:00 p.m.^[34]During this time, officers informed Valley that he was not free to leave and advised him of his Miranda rights.^[35] Officers also seized his cellphone without his consent and obtained a search warrant for it seven days later on December 15, 2021.^[36]Valley was not taken into custody on December 8, 2021, and he was arrested approximately six months later.^[37]

On May 18, 2022, F. Coma, M. Coma, and Valley were charged by indictment with one count of attempted possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846, and a criminal forfeiture allegation.^[38]

A. Motions to Suppress

F. Coma, M. Coma, and Valley subsequently filed individual motions to suppress evidence related to the searches and seizures performed by law enforcement officers during the encounter.^[39]

1. F. Coma Motion to Suppress

On February 15, 2023, F. Coma moved to suppress all evidence from the searches related to the search and seizure of the parcel sent via USPS and the search of the apartments.^[40]He argued that: (1) he has standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim as to the USPS parcel; (2) the United States Postal Inspection Service lacked probable cause to hold the parcel; (3) the affidavit supporting the search warrant for the parcel was insufficient; (4) the parcel was held for an unreasonable duration before K-9 Denali's sniff search; (5) K-9 Denali's sniff was unreliable; (6) officers lacked probable cause to enter Unit #2 without a warrant; (7) officers lacked probable cause for his arrest; (8) the officers' use of Clue Spray under ultraviolet light amounted an impermissible warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment; and (9) the search of Unit #3 violated his Fourth Amendment rights.^[41]

The Government responded to F. Coma's Motion, arguing: (1) F. Coma lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search and seizure of the parcel; (2) there was sufficient probable cause to support the search warrant; (3) the parcel was held for a reasonable time before K-9 Denali performed the sniff search; (4) F. Coma lacked standing to challenge the search of Unit #2; (5) exigent circumstances warranted the warrantless search of Unit #2; and (6) the independent source doctrine foreclosed the need to suppress evidence arising out of the search of Unit #3.^[42]

Replying, F. Coma argued: (1) exigent circumstances did not justify the warrantless search of Unit #2; (2) law enforcement had an opportunity to obtain a search warrant but declined to do so; and (3) law enforcement violated the “knock and talk” rule established by the United States Supreme Court in Kentucky v. King.^[43]

On July 17, 2023, codefendants M. Coma and Valley separately joined F. Coma's Motion.^[44]

2. M. Coma Motion to Suppress

On July 18, 2023, M. Coma additionally moved to suppress: (1) the fruits of the arrest of M. Coma; (2) the fruits of the search of M. Coma's person; (3) the fruits of the search of M. Coma's backpack; (4) evidence seized from M. Coma's backpack pursuant to warrant 3KO-21-164SW; and (5) evidence seized pursuant to search warrant 3KO-21-163SW.^[45]He argued that: (1) his arrest was unconstitutional; (2) the search of his person was unconstitutional; (3) the search of his backpack was unconstitutional and he did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to a search of the backpack; and (4) the cellphone warrant was derivative of law enforcement's illegal activities.^[46]

Opposing, the Government argued that: (1) M. Coma was merely detained, and even if there was an arrest, it was supported by a warrant and probable cause; (2) the use of an ultraviolet light on M. Coma's hands was not a Fourth Amendment search; (3) M. Coma consented to the search of his backpack; and (4) law enforcement searched M. Coma's cellphone pursuant to a valid warrant.^[47]

3. Valley Motion to Suppress

On July 17, 2023, Valley additionally moved to suppress “the fruits of the illegal seizure of his person that resulted in the unlawful confiscation of his cellphone and eventual search of that illegally obtained cellphone pursuant to an invalid search warrant.”^[48]He argued that: (1) his detention was an arrest for which officers required probable cause; (2) probable cause did not exist to support his arrest; (3) the seizure of his cellphone was illegal; and (4) the search warrant lacked probable cause and was invalid.^[49]

Opposing, the Government argued that: (1) Valley's temporary detention during the initial sweep of Unit #2 was permissible; (2) Valley's cellphone was lawfully seized; and (3) the search warrants for Valley's cellphone were supported by probable cause.^[50]

B. Initial Report and...