United States v. Jones

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DESHAUN CURTIS JONES, Defendant.

CRIMINAL No. 2:21-cr-17 - 1

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

August 24, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant DeShaun Curtis Jones (“Jones”) filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence arguing that the stop of the vehicle he was driving was unlawful, and his continued detention was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause.^[1] (ECF No. 58). The Government filed a response arguing that the initial stop of the vehicle Jones was operating was supported by reasonable suspicion. It further contended that the officer had sufficient justification to extend the traffic stop to investigate additional criminal activity. (ECF No. 63). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on Jones's motion. The parties were given the opportunity to submit additional briefing, which they did. (ECF Nos. 66, 70 and 75). After careful consideration of the record, the evidence, and the parties' arguments, the Court will deny Jones's motion for the following reasons.

I. Relevant Facts^[2]

On January 21, 2020, North Huntingdon Township Police Officer Shane Rebel (“Officer Rebel”) was parked ten feet from the side of Route 30 in his marked police vehicle, a Ford Explorer, which was equipped with high powered headlights. He had the vehicle's high beams activated and he was monitoring vehicles for violations of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. Around 8:30 p.m., a gold BMW passed his location in the right lane heading eastbound with heavily tinted windows. Officer Rebel was unable to see anybody in the front seats. He knew the BMW was violating the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, specifically Section 4524(e)(1).^[3](May 11, 2023 Suppression Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”), pp. 28-30, 54, 56-57).

Officer Rebel pulled onto Route 30 and began following the BMW.^[4] He activated his vehicle's emergency lights, and the BMW slowed down, but it did not stop for nearly one-half of a mile. As Officer Rebel was following the BMW, he ran its registration through JNet using the computer inside his vehicle and learned it was registered to Keyoka Akins (“Akins”). The BMW passed by numerous parking lots, streets, and well-lit areas that it could have safely pulled into and stopped. Officer Rebel notified dispatch that he did not know if the vehicle would stop. At one point, Officer Rebel hit the emergency siren. After approximately one minute, the BMW pulled onto the shoulder of Route 30 instead of pulling into a parking lot with numerous empty parking stalls. (Id. at 5, 30, 32-33, 58-59; Government Exhibits 4 and 9, 19:47:42-19:48:27). Officer Rebel's “awareness was heightened.” (Id. at 33). The BMW's failure to pull over despite numerous opportunities to do so was an indicator of criminal activity to Officer Rebel. Additionally, based on his training and experience, what the BMW did was consistent with “white-lining,” which occurs when a subject wants an “officer to be off of their game” and pay more attention to the traffic behind them. (Id. at 33, 59-60).

Officer Rebel's supervisor, Sergeant Justin Wardman (“Sergeant Wardman”),^[5] arrived with his K-9 partner. He heard Officer Rebel's dispatch report and was in the area of Route 30 traveling west. Both vehicles actually passed him. According to Sergeant Wardman, the windows of the BMW were “pretty much blacked out,” so that “[y]ou cannot see anybody inside.” (Id. at 4-5, 7, 10; Government Exhibit 2).

Officer Rebel approached the front passenger window of the BMW and was still unable to see inside. He knocked on the window to get the BMW's occupant(s) to roll down the window. As the window lowered, Officer Rebel immediately smelled the odor of raw marijuana emanating from inside.^[6] Jones was the driver, and a female was sitting in the front passenger seat. (Id. at 34-35). Officer Rebel asked for Jones's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Jones only gave Officer Rebel a Pennsylvania identification card. This immediately raised Officer Rebel's suspicion that Jones did not have a valid driver's license. Officer Rebel then asked the female to identify herself, and she identified herself as Akins and provided a change of address card. Officer Rebel again asked for the registration and insurance. Jones pulled out a title from the center console. Officer Rebel continued to ask for the required documents - i.e., registration and proof of insurance. By two and half minutes into the traffic stop, Officer Rebel still had not obtained the requested documents.^[7] Akins eventually located the registration in the glove box. During all of this, Officer Rebel observed that Jones was more nervous than drivers he typically encounters during traffic stops. When Akins closed the glove box, Officer Rebel noticed a brick wrapper between her legs at her feet. It was packaging paper for heroin with a blue Popeyes stamp.^[8] (Id. at 38-42, 44, 60). He knew the heroin packaging material was a violation of “Title 35 780-113A32 paraphernalia.” (Id. at 43).

At that point, which was only three minutes from when Officer Rebel first approached the vehicle on foot, Officer Rebel asked Jones to step out of the BMW and come to the rear of the vehicle. Officer Rebel asked if Jones had any weapons on him. Jones stated that he did not.

When asked if he would consent to a pat-down, Jones said yes. A pat-down was conducted and no weapons were found on Jones. Officer Rebel then ran the vehicle information through dispatch as well as an inquiry into whether Jones had a valid driver's license. Almost seven minutes into the entire encounter (from the point at which Officer Rebel began to follow the vehicle), dispatch notified Officer Rebel that Jones's license was expired (and suspended), and that he did not have a concealed carry permit for a firearm. On the other hand, dispatch notified Officer Rebel that Akins had a valid driver's license and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm. (Id. at 44-46, 63; Government Exhibit 9, 19:48:46-19:54:20).

Officer Rebel left Jones at the rear of the vehicle and returned to the passenger side to ask Akins if she had located the BMW's insurance information. She replied no. He then asked her about the odor of marijuana in the vehicle, if there was marijuana in the vehicle, if they had been around anyone who had or smoked marijuana, and if she had a medical marijuana card. Akins said no to all of Officer Rebel's questions. Akins was asked to exit the vehicle, and she complied. When Officer Rebel asked Jones the same questions, he replied no. Then, when asked for consent to search the vehicle, Jones said no. (Id. at 47-48, 63; Government Exhibit 9, 19:54:32-20:01:02).

Approximately thirteen minutes after Officer Rebel pulled over the BMW, the K-9 officer, Rocco, walked around the vehicle with Sergeant Wardman to conduct a sniff. Rocco positively alerted to narcotics on the driver's side door seam between it and the rear passenger door.^[9] As a result of military service, Sergeant Wardman cannot smell anything. He notified Officer Rebel of Rocco's positive alert to the odor of narcotics from the vehicle. (Id. at 9-13, 1619, 67; Government Exhibit 9, 20:01:03 - 20:01:34).

Officer Rebel then handcuffed Jones and advised him that he was under arrest. Officer Rebel asked Akins if there was anything illegal inside the vehicle. She said that Jones had illegal items inside the vehicle, but she did not know what they were. Akins gave verbal and written consent to search the vehicle. Prior to the search commencing, Jones called Officer Rebel to where he was standing and said that he had illegal items inside the vehicle and that everything belonged to him. (Id. at 48-49, 64). More specifically, Jones said that he had cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, and that it was located in the glove box and backseat of the BMW. Contraband was recovered from the vehicle, including .342 grams (approximately three-quarters of a pound) of marijuana from the backseat in a garbage bag - it was not vacuum-sealed. (Id. at 50-51).

II. Analysis

The Fourth Amendment safeguards the “right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const, amend. IV.^[10] “As a general rule, the burden of proof is on the defendant who seeks to suppress evidence.” United States v. Johnson, 63 F.3d 242, 245 (3d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The starting point is to determine whether the seizure occurred without a warrant. When a defendant, like Jones, asserts that the Government seized him without a warrant, he easily clears his initial burden. “The burden then shifts to the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer's seizure of the defendant reflected the protections of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Wilburn, No. 18-115, 2021 WL 1310423, at *22 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2021) (citations omitted). As there is no dispute that Jones was seized without a warrant (through the traffic stop), the Government bears the burden of showing that the Fourth Amendment was not violated. The Court finds that it did so for the following reasons of law and fact.

A. A valid traffic stop occurred.

“A traffic stop is a ‘seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, ‘even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.'” United States v. Delfin-Colina, 464 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Delaware v Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979)). Further, “[i]t is well-established that a traffic stop is lawful under the Fourth Amendment where a police officer observes a violation of the state traffic regulations.” United States v. Moorefield, 111 F.3d 10, 12 (3d Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). It need only be supported by...