United States v. Denby

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TYLER DENBY, Defendant.

No. 4:22CR3027

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

August 7, 2023

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant has filed a motion to suppress, arguing every contact with law enforcement for this case violated his constitutional rights. He argues:

1) He was unlawfully stopped by law enforcement;

2) He was unlawfully detained;

3) He was unlawfully ordered to exit his vehicle;

4) He was unlawfully pat searched;

5) He was unlawfully handcuffed;

6) His vehicle was searched without probable cause or a warrant;

7) He was questioned at the scene of the traffic stop in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights;

8) He was unlawfully arrested;

9) He was questioned at the hospital in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights;

10) The warrant application lacked a sufficient showing of probable cause to authorize a search of his cell phone(s);

11) He was questioned on October 26, 2021, in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights; and

12) He was questioned on February 16, 2022, in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

As explained below, the motion to suppress should be denied.

ANALYSIS

Rather than providing a separate statement of factual findings, the legal issues raised by Defendant's motion, along with the court's factual findings relevant to those issues, will be addressed together and in chronological order. After reviewing the exhibits received at the hearing, and hearing and observing the witnesses as they testified, I find the facts discussed herein are credible.

1. Investigative stop by law enforcement

On the morning of July 30, 2021, the Police Department in Alliance Nebraska (APD) received two separate calls, each reporting that a man in camouflage clothing with a long-bladed knife strapped to his hip had approached them in a harassing and threatening manner; shouting at them, asking them what they had done to the country, and accusing them of destroying it. The persons reporting this information provided their names to APD. One of them followed the man as he drove in Alliance took pictures of his vehicle, and handed the pictures to an Alliance police officer.

Later that morning, a man jumped out of his car and flagged down Box Butte County Sheriff Tammy Mowry as she was driving near a gas and convenience store in Alliance, Nebraska. The man told the Sheriff Mowry that he had an altercation with a person, identified by Sheriff Mowry as Defendant Tyler Denby. Sheriff Mowry pulled into the gas station parking lot and contacted APD by dispatch to report the problem. She then approached Defendant, who was seated in his SUV. (Ex. 1, at 0.45-1.06) APD Officer Dani Campfield arrived at the scene shortly thereafter. Campfield noticed that Denby's vehicle matched the description provided by those who had contacted the APD earlier that morning. Campfield promptly called the SUV license plate number into dispatch.

The Sheriff asked for Denby's car keys and then placed the keys on the dash in front of the steering wheel. By then, APD Officer Marcus Hjersman, Sergeant James Grumbles, and Investigator (now Sergeant) David LaDuke had responded at the scene. The APD officers advised the Sheriff that earlier that day, callers had reported that a man wearing camouflage clothing with a knife strapped to his hip had approached them in a harassing and threatening manner. Sheriff Mowry looked closer at Denby. He was wearing camouflage clothing and had a knife strapped to his hip. From there, Sheriff Mowry turned the investigation over to the APD officers, who detained the defendant as they investigated whether Denby was engaged in criminal activity.

Defendant claims the officers unlawfully stopped him. “The Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative stops . . . when a law enforcement officer has ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.'” Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 396 (2014). Whether “reasonable suspicion” exists depends on the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability. Navarette, 572 U.S. at 397.

Tips provided to law enforcement can support a valid basis for developing reasonable suspicion that criminal conduct has or is occurring. Law enforcement need not personally observe the alleged criminal conduct. But a tip cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion unless it is supported by sufficient indicia of reliability. United States v. Wheat, 278 F.3d 722, 729 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding “an anonymous tip about the dangerous operation of a vehicle whose innocent details are accurately described” provides “sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigatory stop by a law enforcement officer who does not personally observe any erratic driving”). A tip can be considered sufficiently reliable if, for example, it is cross-corroborated; that is, more than one person reported essentially the same information, (See, e,g., United States v. Leppert, 408 F.3d 1039, 1042 (8th Cir. 2005)), law enforcement's own investigation corroborates details of tip, (See, e.g., Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990)), or the tip accurately predicts a future event, indicating “a special familiarity” with the suspect's intent and conduct, (Navarette, 572 U.S. at 397). A tip has all the hallmarks of reliability when the caller identifies himself by name and telephone number and provides a detailed, contemporaneous report based on eyewitness knowledge. United States v. Vannoy, No. 22-2676, 2023 WL 4678686, at *1 (8th Cir. July 21,2023). See also, Leppert, 408 F.3d. at 1042 (“[A]n explicit and detailed description of alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed firsthand, entitles the tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case.”).

Here, APD received two separate calls, with the callers identifying themselves by name, stating they were threatened by a man in camouflage clothing with a knife strapped to his hip. One of the callers followed the vehicle and provided pictures to law enforcement. Then later that same morning and in the same town, a citizen flagged down the Sheriff to report an altercation, identified Defendant as the alleged assailant, and Defendant was wearing camouflage clothing with a knife strapped to his hip. Under these facts, the citizen reports were detailed, cross-corroborated, not anonymous, and contemporaneous eyewitness descriptions of a person “intentionally disturb[ing] the peace and quiet” of others, a Class III misdemeanor under Nebraska law. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1322. The citizen reports were amply supported by indicia of reliability, and they provided a sufficient articulable basis of reasonable suspicion to believe Denby was currently or had previously engaged in criminal activity. The officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they stopped Denby to investigate and either confirm or allay their suspicion of criminal conduct.

2. Detention

Upon arrival, and after calling in the license plate number of the vehicle, Campfield approached the driver side window and asked Denby for his identification. While standing in that position, she saw what appeared to be a glass marijuana pipe in Denby's pocket. She asked Denby if the glass object in his pocket was a marijuana pipe. When Denby confirmed that it was, Campfield directed him to lay the marijuana pipe on the dash. As he pulled the marijuana pipe from his pocket, the officer smelled the odor of marijuana. Shortly thereafter, she received notice from dispatch that Denby was the subject of a protective order. Campfield advised Denby that the APD officers were going to conduct a probable cause search of the car, and she ordered Denby to exit the vehicle.

Denby claims his detention was unnecessarily prolonged in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. “Whether the duration of the stop is reasonable is determined by the seizure's ‘mission,' and law enforcement must be ‘reasonably diligent' in carrying out that mission.” United States v. Magallon, 984 F.3d 1263, 1278 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 354). When assessing whether a defendant was detained for an unreasonably long period of time, the court considers whether the police worked diligently to confirm or dispel their suspicion of criminal conduct. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605, (1985). An investigative stop and detention “must cease once reasonable suspicion or probable cause dissipates.” United States v. Rederick, 65 F.4th 961,966 (8th Cir. 2023).

Campfield wasted no time when investigating whether Denby was the person who reportedly threatened citizens earlier that day. She worked swiftly, and within six minutes, she saw drug paraphernalia in Denby's vehicle, smelled the odor of marijuana coming from that vehicle, saw Denby had a knife strapped to his hip, and learned he was subject to a protective order. Rather than dispel her suspicion of criminal conduct, her suspicions were heightened, and further investigation was necessary. The APD officers worked diligently throughout this investigative stop. Denby's detention while that investigation was ongoing did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.

3. Order to exit the vehicle

At Campfield's direction, Denby exited his vehicle. Once a vehicle has been stopped, a police officer may order the driver out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Bueno, 443 F.3d 1017, 1025 (8th Cir. 2006).

4. Pat search

With Denby now standing outside the vehicle, Campfield removed the knife at Denby's hip from its sheath. Denby then volunteered that he had a pocketknife...