Case Law United States v. Jones

United States v. Jones

Document Cited Authorities (41) Cited in (7) Related

Kevin James Barry, United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

Candis Lea Mitchell, Office of the Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 54, 55

SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge On January 14, 2020, the Court held a hearing on defendants' motions to suppress. At the hearing, the government requested leave to file supplemental briefing regarding whether defendant Darryl Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car. The government filed a supplemental brief on January 19, and defendant Jones filed a response on January 28, 2019. After careful consideration of the parties' arguments and the record before the Court, the Court GRANTS defendants' motions to suppress.

BACKGROUND1
I. Alleged traffic violation

On Tuesday, January 9, 2018, at approximately 12:40 a.m., defendants Darryl Jones and Gregory Walker were driving a white Ford Fusion in the Marina District of San Francisco.2 Jones and Walker are cousins, and they are black. Jones was driving, and Walker was in the front passenger seat. The Ford Fusion was a rental car that had been rented by Walker's mother, Gina Huddleston, in her name. Huddleston Decl. ¶¶ 1-2 (Dkt. No. 67-1). Ms. Huddleston gave her son, Walker, permission to drive the car, and Walker gave Jones permission to drive the car. Id. ¶ 3; Supp. Jones Decl. ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 74).3

Jones states in his declaration,

2. As I was driving on Franklin Street, I drove past a SFPD patrol car, which was stopped at a red light on a side street of Franklin.
3. In my rear view mirror, I saw the patrol car run a red light to turn onto Franklin Street behind my car.
4. In my rear view mirror, I saw the patrol car follow me for several blocks.4 Finally, we stopped at a red light at the Lombard Street intersection. The patrol car pulled up to the lane on my right side.

Jones Decl. ¶¶ 2-4 (Dkt. No. 54-2).

San Francisco Police Department Officers Robert Glenn and Trevor Roberts were on uniformed patrol, and they were in the patrol car that pulled up next to defendants' vehicle. Officer Glenn, who was driving, wrote in his Incident Report that when their patrol car was parallel to the Ford Fusion, "I looked over and made eye contact with the occupants ... driver Darryl Jones and ... passenger Gregory Walker whom immediately looked away from me." Incident Report at USA-000029 (Dkt. No. 63-1).

The intersection of Franklin Street and Lombard Street has two left-turn lanes; defendants' vehicle was in the inner left-turn lane, and the officers' car was in the outer left-turn lane. Both vehicles turned left onto Lombard Street. After turning left onto Lombard, Jones braked to allow the SFPD patrol car to pass him on the right, and then he merged three lanes over and pulled into the parking lot of the Redwood Inn at 1530 Lombard Street. Jones describes what happened as follows:

6. Shortly after turning onto Lombard Street, I saw a hotel called the Redwood Inn on the right side of the street. I looked in my rear view mirror to see if any cars were behind me. There were not; only the SFPD patrol car to my right.
7. I braked to allow the SFPD car to pass me on the right side, and then I turned on my blinker, merged three lanes over, and pulled into the Redwood Inn parking lot at 1530 Lombard Street.
8. After I pulled into the parking lot, I turned my vehicle around and began to back into a parking space.
9. After I backed in, I saw the same SFPD patrol car pull up across the entrance way of the hotel parking lot with its lights on. Because the car was parked in front of the entrance, blocking the only exit, I could not drive away from the lot.

Jones Decl. ¶¶ 6-9.

Officer Glenn's Incident Report states:

As we got on to Lombard Street, the Ford came to a stop in the number one lane and began to turn right narrowly missing my vehicle. This turning movement made the vehicle behind us slam on their brakes and honk their horn (in violation of 22107(a) CVC).5 The Ford crossed three lanes of traffic and pulled into the parking lot of 1530 Lombard Street. I was unable to safely maneuver my vehicle to effect a traffic stop on the vehicle. I made a lap around the block and waited facing south on Franklin Street at the intersection of Lombard Street to see if the vehicle was going to pull out of 1530 Lombard Street. As I was waiting I saw the vehicle start to pull onto Lombard Street from the parking lot. I pulled my vehicle to westbound Lombard Street so that I could effect a traffic stop on the Ford. As I turned onto Lombard Street I saw the driver Jones look in my direction. The Ford reversed back into the parking lot into a disabled parking spot.
I saw that the Hotel employee Victor was looking at the car and then at Officer Roberts and me. I approached Victor and he stated that he saw the vehicle pull into the parking lot and then he saw that the vehicle was going to leave but when the vehicle saw our police car they reversed into a parking spot. Victor stated that he was unsure if they were hotel guests.6

Incident Report at USA-000029.

II. Officer Glenn's interactions with Walker

While Officer Glenn was talking to the hotel employee Victor, Walker exited the vehicle.7 Jones Decl. ¶ 10; Glenn's Incident Report at USA-000029. According to Officer Glenn's Incident Report, Glenn asked Walker what he and Jones were doing, and Walker stated that they were looking for a friend who was staying at the hotel. Glenn's Incident Report at USA-000029. Approximately 30 seconds into Officer Glenn's body cam footage, Officer Glenn asked for Walker's identification and subjected him to a pat-down search, which did not reveal any weapons or contraband. Mitchell Decl., Ex. B at 00:36. Walker then said, "... they didn't text me the address, but they right here," presumably referring to the friend(s) he had said he and Jones were visiting at the hotel. Id. at 00:44-00:48. Officer Glenn asked Walker if he knew the address of the hotel (Walker did not), and then Glenn told Walker to sit down on some stairs located to the right of the hotel lobby "so we can figure out what's going on." Id. at 00:49-00:58. Officer Glenn then asked Officer Roberts whether he had obtained Jones' identification yet, and he told Roberts to have Jones turn the car off. Id. at 01:05-01:10.

Officer Glenn then contacted dispatch and provided the address of the hotel, the license plate number of the Ford Fusion, and Walker's information for a records check. Id. at 01:28-02:27.8 Approximately two and a half minutes into Officer Glenn's body cam footage, Officer Glenn told Walker, "So, being straight up with you man, it looks a little weird when we're stopped next to you guys, you guys cut across three lanes then pull into here. And then we come around the corner, and you guys were trying to pull out." Id. at 02:28-02:37. Walker responded (what he said is indecipherable on the body cam footage), and Glenn continued, "You know what I mean? Like, from my position, right, that seems like, a little weird for me. And then we come and the manager's standing out here and he's staring at us and then staring at you and staring at us and staring at you, [laughing] so, that's why we pulled in, and he's like ‘these people, they pulled in, they pulled out,’ so that's why we're talking to you guys, we're trying to figure out what's going on, make sure everything's on the up and up. If it ain't nothing, it ain't nothing. We'll get out of your guys' hair." Id. at 02:37-02:58. Officer Glenn then spoke to Officer Roberts and Jones, who are both off camera, and said that Jones could step out of the car "if he wants, if he's nervous about something." Id. at 03:03. During this entire colloquy, Officer Glenn did not mention a traffic violation as the reason for the stop, nor did he mention anything about smelling marijuana.

Approximately four minutes into Officer Glenn's body cam footage, Officer Glenn asked Walker, "How much weed do you guys have in the car?" Id. 04:06. At the time Officer Glenn asked this question, he was standing close to Walker, who was still sitting on the steps.9 Walker stated that there was none. Officer Glenn responded, "Nothing? Nothing? That's good. I like that." Id. at 04:14. Glenn then asked, "What have you been arrested for in the past?" Id. at 04:15-17. Walker answered, stating he had been arrested for possession of a firearm, and then Glenn continued to question Walker, asking if there were any other arrests and whether the possession charge had been discharged (Walker said it had). Id. at 04:18-04:44. Throughout this questioning, Walker continued to sit on the hotel stairs. Officer Glenn then informed Walker that Jones was on probation and that he did not have a valid driver's license, and that Walker's driver's license was valid. Id. at 04:50-05:54.

Approximately four minutes into Officer Glenn's body cam footage, Officer Glenn said, "If there ain't nothing in the car to worry about, there ain't nothing in the car to worry about, right? So if you guys are being on the up and up with us, it's gonna be all good. But if you're not, it's better to tell me now than later. You know what I mean?" Id. at 06:00-06:12. Walker responded with, "Yeah." Id.

III. Officer Roberts' interactions with Jones

While Officer Glenn was questioning Walker, Officer Roberts exited the patrol car to question Jones, who was sitting in the driver's seat of the Ford Fusion. Mitchell Decl. Ex. C (Officer Robert's body cam footage).10 Officer Roberts stood by the driver's side and requested Jones' license and registration. Id. at 00:00-01:00. Roberts contacted dispatch and provided Jones' information for a records check. Id. at 01:26. Jones, apparently responding to hearing Officer Glenn say to...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California – 2022
United States v. Taylor
"...routinely find that evasion without reasonable suspicion of an underlying crime is insufficient. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 438 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (recognizing that even if the defendants' conduct could be "characterized as 'evasive'," that conduct did not provi..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont – 2021
United States v. Whitlock
"...state marijuana laws" because Proposition 64 "legalized the possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana"); United States v. Jones, 438 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (holding that "even if the [San Francisco Police Department] officers smelled unburned marijuana emanating from th..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California – 2022
United States v. Gould
"...States v. Martinez, 811 Fed.Appx. 396, 397 (9th Cir. 2020); United States v. Talley, 467 F.Supp.3d 832, 835-36 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Jones, 438 F.Supp.3d at 1053-54; United States v. Maffei, 417 F.Supp.3d 1212, (N.D. Cal. 2019); Blakes v. Sup. Ct., 72 Cal.App. 5th 904, 911 (2021); People v. Joh..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon – 2021
United States v. Shelton, 3:20-cr-00050-HZ-1
"...In United States v. Jones, two officers conducted a traffic stop on thedefendants for making an unsafe lane change. 438 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2020). The court determined that the officers impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop by calling and waiting for backup, questioning the..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2021
United States v. Louangamath
"... ... 2006) (quoting Delaware v ... Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)) (quotation marks omitted) ... “The government bears the burden of establishing that a ... warrantless search was reasonable and did not violate the ... Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Jones, 438 ... F.Supp.3d 1039, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2020), appeal dismissed ... sub nom. United States v. Walker, No. 20-10099, 2020 WL ... 3067525 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2020) (citing United States v ... Carbajal, 956 F.2d 924, 930 (9th Cir. 1992)) ... Police ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California – 2022
United States v. Taylor
"...routinely find that evasion without reasonable suspicion of an underlying crime is insufficient. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 438 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (recognizing that even if the defendants' conduct could be "characterized as 'evasive'," that conduct did not provi..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont – 2021
United States v. Whitlock
"...state marijuana laws" because Proposition 64 "legalized the possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana"); United States v. Jones, 438 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (holding that "even if the [San Francisco Police Department] officers smelled unburned marijuana emanating from th..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California – 2022
United States v. Gould
"...States v. Martinez, 811 Fed.Appx. 396, 397 (9th Cir. 2020); United States v. Talley, 467 F.Supp.3d 832, 835-36 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Jones, 438 F.Supp.3d at 1053-54; United States v. Maffei, 417 F.Supp.3d 1212, (N.D. Cal. 2019); Blakes v. Sup. Ct., 72 Cal.App. 5th 904, 911 (2021); People v. Joh..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon – 2021
United States v. Shelton, 3:20-cr-00050-HZ-1
"...In United States v. Jones, two officers conducted a traffic stop on thedefendants for making an unsafe lane change. 438 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2020). The court determined that the officers impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop by calling and waiting for backup, questioning the..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California – 2021
United States v. Louangamath
"... ... 2006) (quoting Delaware v ... Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)) (quotation marks omitted) ... “The government bears the burden of establishing that a ... warrantless search was reasonable and did not violate the ... Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Jones, 438 ... F.Supp.3d 1039, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2020), appeal dismissed ... sub nom. United States v. Walker, No. 20-10099, 2020 WL ... 3067525 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2020) (citing United States v ... Carbajal, 956 F.2d 924, 930 (9th Cir. 1992)) ... Police ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex