United States v. Dorsey

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ALAN DORSEY, Defendant.

No. 4:22-CR-00092

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 29, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MATTHEW W. BRANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Alan Dorsey has filed several motions related to criminal proceedings against him for the distribution of controlled substances and the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. The indictment in this matter covers two events (1) an alleged drug transaction between Dorsey and an unidentified confidential informant (“CI”) working with the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) and (2) a traffic stop that led to the recovery of drugs and a firearm from bags owned by Dorsey who was a passenger in the stopped vehicle.

Dorsey seeks to suppress evidence seized as a result of the traffic stop. During the stop, Dorsey refused to provide his last name to PSP Trooper Michael Cook. He eventually provided a fake name, and when confronted, fled. He was ultimately apprehended, and contraband was found inside his bags.

Dorsey also seeks to sever the indictment against him to separate the charge related to the alleged drug transaction and those related to the contraband found during the traffic stop. He wishes to testify in his own defense with respect to the transaction with the CI but not as to the contraband recovered during the traffic stop. Lastly, he seeks to compel the Government to reveal the identity of the CI. For the following reasons, the Court denies all of Dorsey's motions.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Underlying Facts

1. The June 3, 2021 Drug Transaction^[1]

On June 3, 2021, the PSP used a confidential informant to purchase $200 worth of methamphetamine from Dorsey in Bellefonte Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania.^[2] On Dorsey's instruction, the CI drove to meet Dorsey in a parking lot.^[3] A PSP Trooper observed the transaction.^[4] Another Trooper personally identified Dorsey as he left the transaction in a gray Hyundai SUV.^[5]

2. The September 11, 2021 Traffic Stop^[6]

On September 11, 2021, PSP Trooper Cook began to follow a Silver Honda Accord.^[7] He observed the Accord cross onto the double yellow centerline that separates lanes of opposite traffic three times in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 3313(d), which provides that drivers should drive on the right half of the roadway.^[8]

Trooper Cook initiated a traffic stop.^[9] Upon approaching the vehicle's driver side window, Trooper Cook explained to the driver, Grayson Blake, why he pulled over the vehicle and requested Blake's license, registration, and insurance.^[10] As Blake searched for his documents, Trooper Cook asked Dorsey, who was in the passenger seat, for his name.^[11] Dorsey refused to provide his last name, asking why Cook needed it and then asked if he could leave the traffic stop to go to his house nearby.^[12] Trooper Cook explained he was “making conversation” and directed Dorsey to remain in the vehicle.^[13] and asked Blake to exit the car to stand next to Cook's patrol car's passenger side window while he assessed Blake's documentation.^[14]

While running Blake's information, Trooper Cook asked Blake about how he knew Dorsey and if Dorsey had outstanding warrants.^[15] Blake referred to Dorsey as one of his friends.^[16] When Trooper Cook asked Blake about the origin of Blake and Dorsey's trip, Blake gave somewhat inconsistent answers.^[17] Cook then again requested Dorsey's last name from Blake.^[18] Blake hesitated and would not give an answer, expressing that he referred to Dorsey as “Al.”^[19] Trooper Cook then asked Blake about Blake's prior criminal history and ran Blake's name for any outstanding warrants, finding only a summary warrant for fishing without a license.^[20] Blake continued to insist that he was not intoxicated and would submit to a sobriety test.^[21]He also expressed that he knew “what was going on” and wasn't partaking in any illegal activity.^[22]

Trooper Cook asked if there was anything illegal in the vehicle and requested to search it.^[23] Blake insisted that there wasn't.^[24] Trooper Cook then requested to search the vehicle and Blake initially consented to the search.^[25] Blake expressed that he would prefer that Cook not search the vehicle and inquired about Cook's reason for searching it.^[26] Cook responded that Blake was free to refuse consent but that Cook was concerned about Dorsey because neither Dorsey nor Blake would give Dorsey's last name.^[27] Cook again confronted Blake about Dorsey's last name, to which Blake responded that Cook would have to ask Dorsey.^[28]

Cook then attempted to confirm with Blake that Blake was refusing consent to search the vehicle.^[29] At that point, Dorsey, who was still seated in Blake's vehicle, stuck his head out of the passenger-side window and attempted to speak to Cook.^[30]Cook exited his police cruiser and informed Blake that Blake could refuse consent, but Cook could call for a canine unit and then obtain a search warrant if the canine unit alerted to the presence of illegal substances.^[31] Blake again protested that he was not intoxicated.^[32] Cook explained that Blake gave an inconsistent story about where he and Dorsey came from and neither he nor Dorsey would give Dorsey's last^[33] name.

Dorsey again asked if he could exit the vehicle and go to his home.^[34] Cook explained that Dorsey was part of a traffic stop and not able to leave.^[35] Cook further explained that he was discussing Blake's rights with Blake and the two would be able to leave soon.^[36] Cook returned to Blake who then consented to the search of the vehicle.^[37] On Cook's instruction, Dorsey exited the vehicle holding a handbag and a sweatshirt.^[38] Dorsey protested, and Cook informed him that he was not under arrest but could not leave the traffic stop.^[39] Dorsey told Cook that he did not have any weapons on him but refused to be patted down.^[40] Dorsey refused to allow Cook to search his belongings, but Cook insisted that Dorsey leave his items on the hood of the Honda Accord because Cook did not know what was inside the bag.^[41] Dorsey retrieved another bag from inside the car that he claimed was his and refused to allow Cook to search it.^[42] Dorsey continued to protest, asserting that he was free to leave the traffic stop.^[43] Cook refused to allow him to leave and insisted that he leave his items on the roof of the vehicle.^[44] Another officer arrived at the scene to assist Trooper Cook in searching the Honda Accord.^[45] After completing the search, Trooper Cook again asked for Dorsey's name and Dorsey again refused.^[46] Dorsey continued to argue with Cook, insisting that he had no part in the motor vehicle violation and should be allowed to leave.^[47] Cook suggested that he could write Dorsey a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt while riding in the Accord.^[48] Dorsey expressed that Cook could write the ticket, but insisted that he was wearing his seatbelt.^[49] Cook again requested Dorsey's last name.^[50] The two continued to argue, and when Cook asked again, Dorsey gave the false name of “Albert Dudley.”^[51]

Trooper Cook conducted a search on that false name, and upon finding no match to Dorsey, confronted Dorsey and demanded his last name.^[52] Dorsey subsequently fled the scene, and was apprehended, arrested, and identified by the officers.^[53] Trooper Cook then conducted a search of Mr. Dorsey's bags before placing them in his vehicle.^[54] He recovered a “ghost gun,” ammunition, fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other drug paraphernalia that Dorsey now seeks to suppress.^[55]

B. Procedural History

Through an indictment, the Government charges Dorsey with distribution of methamphetamine (Count I) and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances (Count II) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).^[56] The Government additionally charges Dorsey with the unlawful possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count III) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count IV).^[57]

Dorsey moves to suppress any evidence recovered as a consequence of the September 11, 2021 traffic stop.^[58] He also moves to compel the Government to disclose the identity of the CI from the June 3, 2021 transaction^[59] and sever the indictment, allowing for separate trials of the offenses stemming from the June transaction and those stemming from the September traffic stop.^[60]

IL DISCUSSION

C. Motion to Sever Counts

“There is a preference in the federal system for joint trial of defendants who are indicted together.”^[61] Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure facilitates that preference by “allowing the government to advance multiple charges against multiple defendants in a single indictment” when those charges “arise out of a common series of acts or transactions.”^[62]

“Although joinder is authorized by Rule 8(a), factual information adduced before or during trial may indicate that joint trial of the counts might be unfair to the defendant.”^[63] Rule 14 provides the remedy:

If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.

But “[m]ere allegations of prejudice are not enough; and it is not sufficient simply to establish that severance would improve the defendant's chance of acquittal.”^[64] Instead, a defendant “must demonstrate clear and substantial prejudice” that would “result[] in a manifestly unfair trial” if joinder is permitted.^[65] Where a defendant wishes to testify in his defense to one count but not...