United States v. Conley

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUINTIN ANDRE CONLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-1723

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

January 12, 2023

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

CLAY Circuit Judge.

In July 2021, Defendant Quintin Andre Conley pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) (b)(1)(A)(viii), and (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Conley to 120 months in custody. On appeal, Conley challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and its application of a two-level sentencing enhancement. The Court AFFIRMS for the reasons set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

In the fall of 2020, a confidential informant told investigators that Conley possessed firearms and sold illegal drugs. According to the informant, Conley drove a white Jeep SUV and spent time in Muskegon, Michigan. In response to those tips, Detective Steve Liskey commenced an investigation. During his investigation, Liskey corroborated some of the informant's tips. For example, Liskey learned that Conley owned a white Jeep. Subsequently, investigators learned more through the Law Enforcement Information Network (the "LEIN"), which is a database upon which police officers often rely. The LEIN indicated that the Jeep lacked valid insurance and that Conley lacked a valid driver's license.

In October 2020, investigators observed Conley driving the white Jeep. Liskey acknowledged in the moment that he lacked probable cause to search the Jeep, but he instructed Michigan State Police Trooper Matthew Rose to stop Conley for driving without insurance. Liskey hoped that by pulling Conley over, investigators could ultimately find justification to search the car lawfully.

Rose followed Liskey's instructions and pulled Conley over.^[1] The dash camera video shows Rose and his partner approaching the Jeep calmly, and without any weapons drawn. When Rose reached Conley's window, he asked Conley for the vehicle's paperwork. Rose then told Conley that it appeared that the Jeep lacked insurance coverage, but he did not mention the suspected license violation. Rose testified later that he did not share that information because he wanted to make the stop appear as routine as possible. Next, Rose asked Conley for identification and Conley responded that he did not have any on him. Shortly thereafter, Conley's girlfriend, who was riding in the passenger seat, produced proof of insurance.

After acknowledging that Conley had produced proof of insurance, Rose asked Conley to step out of the vehicle. Rose testified that he removed Conley from the vehicle in accordance with his "typical procedure" for drivers who lack proper identification. Hr'g Tr., R. 55, Page ID #369. Conley exited the vehicle promptly and cooperatively. The parties dispute what happened next. Rose testified that as Conley exited the vehicle, Rose saw an electronic digital scale in the driver's door pocket. Such scales are, according to Rose, commonly associated with drug dealing. Conley avers that Rose's testimony lacks credibility. Rose could not have seen the scale, Conley argues, because: (1) it was dark out; (2) Rose did not point a flashlight at the door; and (3) officers did not point their spotlight or headlights at the door. In addition, Conley points to the fact that Rose did not mention the scale until about fifteen minutes after Conley exited the Jeep. The district court ultimately credited Rose's testimony on the matter.

Rose asked if Conley had any weapons on him and Conley said that he did not. Rose then asked Conley if he was "good with [Rose] checking real quick" and the video reveals that Conley responded in the affirmative. Def.'s Ex. A, R. 58, Page ID #479.^[2] Conley then put his hands in the air, which the district court later held signified Conley's consent to the pat down.

Rose conducted an open-palmed pat down. According to Rose's testimony, during the pat down, he felt what he believed was a bag of drugs. Rose reached into Conley's pocket and discovered a bag containing two ounces of methamphetamine. After discovering the drugs, Rose handcuffed Conley and asked him whether there was anything in the vehicle that Rose should know about. Conley responded that he had "some stuff" in the car. Def.'s Ex. A, R. 58, Page ID #479. Rose then told Conley that he was under arrest and informed him of his Miranda rights. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement officers searched the Jeep and found two guns, both of which Conley's girlfriend explained were registered to her. Officers also found additional drugs, cash, and cell phones.

A. Procedural History

Several months after his arrest, in February 2021, a grand jury indicted Conley on one count of possession of controlled substances with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and (b)(1)(C).

1. Motion to Suppress

Three months after his indictment, Conley filed a motion to suppress that challenged the validity of the evidence obtained during the stop. After both parties briefed the motion, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on the matter. At that hearing, the court heard testimony from Liskey and Rose. The court also reviewed the dash camera video, as well as documentary and photographic evidence, including the LEIN documents and driver's license records from the Michigan Secretary of State. Those records corroborated Liskey's testimony that investigators' records indicated that Conley's vehicle was uninsured, and that Conley lacked a valid driver's license at the time of the stop.

After considering that evidence, the district court denied Conley's motion to suppress. In denying the motion, the court held that: (1) officers had probable cause to stop Conley based upon the LEIN information that the Jeep lacked insurance and the information that Conley lacked a valid driver's license; (2) Conley consented to the pat down; (3) Rose saw the digital scale in the driver's side door when Conley exited the vehicle; (4) based upon his years of experience and seeing the scale, Rose had reasonable suspicion that the bag contained drugs; and (5) having found the methamphetamine lawfully, Rose was permitted to arrest Conley and search the Jeep. In ruling on the motion, the district court did not consider Conley's statement that there was "stuff in" the Jeep, which Conley made before he was read his Miranda rights.

2. Guilty Plea and Sentencing

Following the denial of his motion to suppress, Conley pleaded guilty to the one-count indictment, pursuant to the terms of a conditional plea agreement. The plea agreement preserved Conley's right to challenge the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.

Before sentencing, the probation department prepared its Final Presentence Report (the "Final PSR"). Based upon the discovery of the two firearms in the car, the probation department included a two-point enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The Final PSR recommended the enhancement based in part on the fact that there were two firearms found in the car "within easy reach of the defendant." The report also cited Conley's knowledge that his girlfriend often carried firearms, and the fact that Conley had previously possessed the guns while moving them out of the reach of the children. Perhaps most importantly, the probation department relied upon the fact that after being read his Miranda rights, Conley told officers where in the car they could locate one of the weapons, which indicated that he knew that at least one gun was in the car. Based on a total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of II, the Guidelines imprisonment range was 97 to 121 months. However, the statutorily required minimum sentence of 10 years was greater than the lower end of the applicable Guidelines range; therefore, the Guidelines term of imprisonment was 120 to 121 months under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). Conley objected to the two-level enhancement. In making his objection, Conley argued that he "did not possess" the firearms in the vehicle, and that it was "clearly improbable" that the firearms were connected to the offense. Def.'s Sentencing Mem., R. 49, Page ID ##269-73. Despite that objection, Conley's counsel acknowledged that Conley "was aware that there was a gun in the car at the time" of the stop. Sentencing Hr'g Tr., R. 57, Page ID #463.

The district court conducted a sentencing hearing in November 2021. At that hearing, the government contended that Conley "was in constructive possession of the firearms ...." Id. at Page ID #465. To support that contention, the government highlighted that the guns were in a car registered to Conley and within his wingspan. The government also averred that it was not "clearly improbable" that the guns were connected to Conley's drug trafficking offense, noting that the handguns were of the type that are routinely seen in drug cases, that guns are "frequently cited as tools of the drug trade," and that the guns were near the drugs at issue. Id. at Page ID #466.

The district court overruled Conley's objection. In doing so, it held that whether Conley possessed the gun was not "factually close" and that "the government [] established, at the very least, constructive possession of the weapon." Id. at Page ID ##466-67. Accordingly, the court sentenced Conley to 120 months in custody, which was the mandatory minimum applicable to the offense. Conley's timely appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Suppress 1. Standard of Review

"...