United States v. Hallmon

695 F.Supp.3d 1042

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Damien Kent HALLMON, Defendant.

No. 22-CR-365 (KMM/DTS)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Signed September 27, 2023

Laura Provinzino, United States Attorney's Office, Mary Riverso, District of Minnesota, Department of Justice-United States Attorney Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.

Jordan S. Kushner Law Office of Jordan S. Kushner, Katherian D. Roe, Office of the Federal Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant.

ORDER

Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge

While on patrol in the City of Bloomington, Police Officer Kenneth LeBaron stopped a minivan driven by Damien Kent Hallmon for traffic violations. Based on his interactions with Mr. Hallmon during the stop, Officer LeBaron suspected there was contraband in the minivan, and searched it. Officer LeBaron found a firearm and several rounds of ammunition and when he asked Mr. Hallmon whose gun it was, Mr. Hallmon stated it was his. Because Mr. Hallmon had previously been convicted of a felony, Officer LeBaron arrested him. The government indicted Mr. Hallmon with being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8).

Mr. Hallmon filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the minivan, arguing that it was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. [ECF 24.] He also filed a motion to suppress statements he made to Officer LeBaron at the scene of the stop, arguing that he was interrogated in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. [ECF 25.] On March 16, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz conducted an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Hallmon's suppression motions. [Tr. of Mots. Hr'g ("Tr."), ECF 54.] Officer LeBaron testified on behalf of the government, and the Court received exhibits from both the government and the defense.¹ Following post-hearing briefing, Judge Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") containing findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Mr. Hallmon's motions to suppress evidence and statements. [R&R, ECF 79.] Judge Schultz recommends that both motions be denied. Mr. Hallmon filed timely objections on August 10, 2023. [Objection ("Obj."), ECF 84.]² For the reasons that follow, the R&R is accepted and the motions to suppress evidence and statements are denied.

I. Facts

Around 7:30 p.m. on August 28, 2022, Officer LeBaron was on patrol in an area of Bloomington that he described as being "well known" for criminal activity. He saw a minivan in an adjacent lane that had an object suspended from the rearview mirror, which is a traffic violation. Officer LeBaron then ran a check of the minivan's license plate and determined that the registered driver had a suspended driver's license. Officer LeBaron's vehicle has the capability to review all information associated with a vehicle, including a Department of Vehicle Services photograph of the registered owner, and he pulled up that information. While stopped at an intersection for 30 seconds or so, Officer LeBaron was right next to the driver and got a clear look at the driver's face. He determined that the driver was the registered owner, who was therefore driving on a suspended license.

Officer LeBaron decided he was going to stop the minivan for the traffic violations. Because he was next to the vehicle at the intersection, when the light turned green he fell back so the minivan could pull ahead of him, and it turned into a Home Depot parking lot. As the vehicle pulled into the parking lot, Officer LeBaron activated his emergency lights, which then automatically turned on his body-worn camera ("bodycam").

Once the minivan was stopped, Officer LeBaron approached the passenger door and motioned for the passenger to lower the window, which she did. The bodycam recording shows that Officer LeBaron discussed the reasons he stopped the minivan with its occupants, Mr. Hallmon and his passenger, Ieisha McGrone. There were also two young children in the backseat. Officer LeBaron stated that he had pulled the minivan over because Mr. Hallmon had a suspended license. Mr. Hallmon responded that he knew his license was suspended and had received a ticket for it the previous day, at one point passing a copy of the citation to Officer LeBaron during the exchange. Mr. Hallmon also told LeBaron that his daughter had recently passed away, explained that his family was temporarily staying in a hotel and that they had just been at the funeral home.³ Officer LeBaron told Mr. Hallmon that he had also pulled him over for having an object (a pine-tree shaped air freshener) suspended from his rearview mirror.

During this exchange, Officer LeBaron stated that he could see standing sweat on Mr. Hallmon's face and neck and that his eyes were dilated, bloodshot, and watery, which are, in Officer LeBaron's training and experience, signs of marijuana use.⁴ Officer LeBaron believed Mr. Hallmon appeared nervous. Mr. Hallmon was speaking rapidly during the exchange, which Officer LeBaron thought might have been an attempt to redirect his attention.

Officer LeBaron returned to his patrol vehicle and ran a criminal records check on Mr. Hallmon, learning that he had prior arrests for drug offenses. Around that time, an assisting officer, Officer Witt, arrived on the scene. Officer LeBaron returned to the minivan and asked Mr. Hallmon to step out of the vehicle. Officer LeBaron wanted Mr. Hallmon to step out of the vehicle because the two minor children were in the backseat, and he planned to speak with Mr. Hallmon away from them.⁵

When Mr. Hallmon opened the driver's side door and exited the vehicle, a small plastic baggie fell to the floorboard of the car between the side of the driver's seat and the opened door. Officer LeBaron had encountered this type of baggie several times before and immediately recognized the baggie as packaging for marijuana. Notably, the baggie has a picture of a marijuana leaf and said "cannabis flower" on the outside. Officer LeBaron grabbed the baggie right away, asked Mr. Hallmon if it was "just weed" and smelled it, indicating that it smelled like marijuana. Mr. Hallmon agreed.

Officer LeBaron asked Mr. Hallmon if he could pat him down and Mr. Hallmon consented. Mr. Hallmon also consented to having Officer LeBaron search inside his hat.⁶ Officer LeBaron found nothing incriminating during these searches.

Officer LeBaron then told Mr. Hallmon that he knew Mr. Hallmon had prior arrests for drug offenses and asked him if he had used drugs recently. Mr. Hallmon stated that he had smoked marijuana the day before. He also admitted that he had been arrested for cocaine-related offenses in the past. Officer LeBaron asked Mr. Hallmon whether there were any other drugs or drug paraphernalia in the vehicle, and Mr. Hallmon admitted that there were probably some leftover blunts or roaches in the ashtray. Officer LeBaron then told Mr. Hallmon he was going to search the vehicle.

Officer LeBaron asked Ms. McGrone to step out of the vehicle, briefly searched her person, and then had her get the couple's children out of the vehicle so that he could search the minivan. He found some marijuana paraphernalia and blunts in the ashtray. In Ms. McGrone's purse he found a pistol and several rounds of ammunition.

When Officer LeBaron had completed his search, he spoke to Ms. McGrone and asked her who the firearm belonged to. Ms. McGrone's demeanor visibly changed, indicating that she likely realized at this point in the encounter that someone was getting arrested. Referring to Mr. Hallmon, she said that he was all she had, and discussed her concerns about their children. However, she reluctantly admitted that the firearm belonged to him, and that he had given it to her to put in her bag.

Next, Officer LeBaron questioned Mr. Hallmon by the front of his squad car. At this point, without having advised Mr. Hallmon of his right to remain silent or to have an attorney present during questioning, LeBaron asked Mr. Hallmon whose gun was in Ms. McGrone's purse. Mr. Hallmon said "I'm taking the fall for that." [Gov't Ex. 1 at 27:43-44, 27:50-54.] Officer LeBaron asked Mr. Hallmon additional questions, noting first that the firearm was in Ms. McGrone's bag along with her credit cards and other items indicating the bag belonged to her, all designed to confirm whether the pistol was, in fact, Mr. Hallmon's. In response, Mr. Hallmon stated "it's mine." [Gov't Ex. 1 at 27:56-57.] He said he had found it "somewhere" and kept it, described what it looked like, and that it had been under the seat before he gave it to Ms. McGrone to place in her purse. [Gov't Ex. 1 at 27: 58-28:18.]

Several times during the traffic stop and when Officer LeBaron was asking Mr. Hallmon questions, Officer LeBaron stated that he was "not a big ticket writer," suggested he was trying to get everyone on their way as quickly as possible, and made other statements suggesting he did not want to get anyone in trouble.

II. Legal Standard

A magistrate judge may conduct evidentiary hearings and submit proposed findings of fact and recommended dispositions on motions to suppress evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(1). The district court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). When conducting such a review of an R&R after the magistrate judge holds an evidentiary hearing, the district court must review the evidence admitted at that hearing, including any transcript of the testimony of witnesses and any video or audio recordings. See United States v. Azure, 539 F.3d 904, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008); Jones v. Pillow, 47 F.3d 251, 252 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Benitez, 244 F. App'x 64, 66 (8th Cir. 2007)).

III. Analysis

Mr. Hallmon filed objections to the R&R related to both his motion to suppress evidence and his motion to suppress...