United States v. Lawson

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WILLIAM LAWSON, Defendant.

No. 5:20-CR-060-GFVT-MAS-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON

October 1, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case is before the Court on Defendant John Lawson's ("Lawson") Motion to Suppress. [DE 21]. Hon. Gregory Van Tatenhove referred this matter to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation. The United States responded to the Motion [DE 26]; Stewart did not reply. The Court held an evidentiary hearing and heard from counsel and one witness. [DE 29, 30]. For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that the District Court deny suppression.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. AVIS DATABASE

Detective Gerald Salyer ("Detective Salyer"), a roughly three-year veteran of the Richmond Police Department ("RPD"), testified at the suppression hearing. [DE 30, Witness and Exhibit List]. Detective Salyer has been employed with the RPD since his graduation from the police academy in 2017. [Hearing Recording, at 01:50-02:12]. As part of his routine police work patrolling various thoroughfares in Richmond, Detective Salyer will often input a vehicle's license plate information in multiple databases, including the Automated Vehicle Information System ("AVIS"), to check its registration and insurance statuses. [Id., at 13:40-14:35]. Detective Salyer accomplishes this task through a mobile data terminal ("MDT") located in his patrol car. [Id., at 03:50-04:02].

More specifically as to AVIS, Detective Salyer believes the database is principally maintained by the Department of Transportation ("DOT"). [Id., at 04:50-05:00]. It reflects vehicle information such as registration, insurance, and title status. [Id., at 05:00-05:10]. For insurance reporting, the AVIS readback may be either "Yes" or "Verify Proof of Insurance." [Id., at 05:56-06:11]. A subset of the "Verify Proof of Insurance" readbacks may include an additional remark that the registration has been canceled for failure to maintain insurance. [Id., at 08:35-08:57].¹ Detective Salyer represented that he has conducted nearly 1,000 traffic stops during his RPD tenure; each stop, he testified, included an AVIS search of the vehicle's license plate information. [Id., at 06:35-07:02]. Detective Salyer further recalls having conducted approximately 100 stops solely based on an AVIS readback of "Verify Proof of Insurance." [Id., at 07:05-07:15]. Roughly 25% of those specific "Verify Proof of Insurance" stops resulted in the operator ultimately demonstrating valid insurance coverage. [Id., at 09:10-09:40]. Detective Salyer testified that the AVIS database is "more often than not" reliable, and a "Verify Proof of Insurance" readback corresponds with the actual absence of insurance proof. [Id.].

When an officer conducts a stop based on a "Verify Proof of Insurance" readback, the vehicle operator is required to produce insurance verification.² [Id., at 09:40-09:54]. Detective Salyer has encountered scenarios where the driver is able to produce an ostensibly valid insurance card. Given the apparent AVIS discrepancy, Detective Salyer then contacts the listed insurer for additional information. [Id., at 10:10-10:43]. Per Detective Salyer, "numerous" such inquiries have led to the insurer advising that the policyholder had previously canceled the coverage after paying the initial premium, despite the issued card reflecting a six-month coverage term. [Id.]. In such cases, the driver in fact lacked the required insurance coverage and the AVIS database was, in fact, correct. However, Detective Salyer testified that in roughly 65% to 75% of cases in which drivers were able to produce an ostensibly valid card, further inquiry established that they did have valid insurance coverage, but had switched insurers or experienced other coverage changes that simply were not yet updated in the AVIS database. [Id., at 11:00-12:10]. Thus, the database was not unreliable, but simply had not received the most recent information. Detective Salyer also explained that inadvertent lapses in coverage resulting from a changed debit or credit card at times prompted an AVIS "Verify Proof of Insurance" readback. [Id., at 13:10-13:36]. Detective Salyer further noted ("rare") situations involving a "Verify Proof of Insurance" readback with the additional "registration canceled" remark, where the driver had recently obtained valid insurance coverage but had not yet contacted the County Clerk to reinstate his or her registration. [Id., at 26:30-27:35].

The precise AVIS updating mechanics and timeline are not, on this record, entirely clear. At a minimum, though, it is evident that AVIS database maintenance is a joint effort by the DOT and County Clerks throughout the Commonwealth. [Id., at 05:00-05:30, 27:35-28:20]. The process involves cross-referencing vehicles listed as registered in Kentucky with vehicles designated as validly insured in Kentucky. [Id.]. The County Clerk (in each Kentucky county) then updates AVIS with the registration and insurance information, and contacts registered vehicle owners without valid insurance via letter to warn that their registration will be canceled if they do not obtain valid insurance. [Id.].³ Detective Salyer represented that the County Clerk updated the AVIS database monthly on the fifteenth of each month. [Id.]. Overall, Detective Salyer described the AVIS database as "very reliable" and "more often times than not . . . accurate." [Id., at 19:00-19:25].

B. TRAFFIC STOP OF DEFENDANT LAWSON

At approximately 2:58 a.m. on February 12, 2020, Detective Salyer was on routine patrol when he observed a blue Chevy Suburban travelling near the Eastern Bypass at Merrick Drive in Richmond, Kentucky. [Id., at 13:40-14:35]. Detective Salyer ran the vehicle's license plate information in multiple databases, including AVIS. [Id.]. Detective Salyer initially checked the vehicle's information in the AVIS database simply because it was nearly 3:00 a.m., and there was no other activity requiring his attention at the time. [Id., at 19:55-20:10]. The response from the database was a "Verify Proof of Insurance" readback. [Id., at 14:35-14:43].⁴

Detective Salyer followed the Suburban as it exited a gas station near Merrick Drive and activated his police cruiser's lights to stop the vehicle based on the AVIS readback. [Id., at 19:55-20:51, 14:45-15:45]. Upon stopping the Suburban, Detective Salyer asked the driver (later identified as Lawson)⁵ to provide identification and proof of insurance. [Id., at 15:25-16:45]. Lawson was unable to produce valid insurance for the Chevy Suburban. [Id.]. Detective Salyer ultimately advised that he could call Lawson's purported insurer to verify coverage and directed Lawson to continue searching for the card. [Id.]. At that time, Detective Salyer returned to his cruiser to prepare a citation. [Id.].

While Lawson remained in the vehicle still searching for his insurance card, a canine unit arrived. [Id., at 17:45-18:39, 20:25-23:08]. Detective Salyer testified that he and the canine officer, Madison County Deputy Sheriff Jonathan Thompson ("Deputy Thompson"), frequently conducted patrol duties together when they worked together on third shift. [Id.]. Deputy Thompson, thus, was already en route to Detective Salyer's location with the canine and arrived on-scene before Detective Salyer requested any assistance relative to the stop. [Id.]. Lawson does not dispute this chronology. [See DE 21, at Page ID #64-65 (noting that Lawson searched for his insurance card "for approximately ten minutes," and the dog sniff occurred "[w]hile Lawson was still searching for the document").].⁶

After conducting an open-air sniff of the Suburban, the canine alerted (i.e., gave a positive response, indicating the likely presence of illicit substances) at both the rear and the driver's side door of the vehicle. [Id., at 24:40-25:25]. Lawson initially hesitated to step out of the vehicle but ultimately complied with Detective Salyer's orders to do so. [DE 26-2, at Page ID # 114]. Upon searching Lawson, officers located roughly $570 in cash, a hydrocodone pill, a plastic bag with apparent drug residue, and multiple rounds of ammunition. [Id.]. A subsequent vehicle search further revealed a loaded handgun accessible to the driver's side of the vehicle, $23,070 in cash, glass pipes containing potential drug residue, and a digital scale. [Id.]. After confirming that Lawson was a convicted felon and unable to lawfully possess a firearm, officers arrested Lawson and impounded the vehicle. [Id.]. Detective Salyer and fellow officers used the evidence uncovered during the vehicle search to obtain a search warrant for Lawson's residence. [Id., at Page ID # 115]. There, officers located additional cash, a firearm, and other suspected proof of narcotics trafficking activity. [Id.].

II. ANALYSIS

Lawson moves to suppress all proof stemming the initial AVIS-based traffic stop. He argues that Detective Salyer did not have reasonable suspicion for the stop based simply on the AVIS database readback. He urges the Court to exclude all fruits of the stop, including evidence obtained in the vehicle search and all items found in the later search of Lawson's residence. Lawson does not challenge the duration or scope of the stop. The parties agree that the dispositive issue is whether an AVIS database "Verify Proof of Insurance" response supplies the requisite reasonable suspicion in this scenario. That, in turn, hinges on system reliability. The Government argues that the AVIS database is reliable and provided Detective Salyer with reasonable suspicion that Lawson had committed an insurance violation on February 12, 2020.

A. BASIS FOR THE STOP

"The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest." United States v. Smith, 594 F.3d 530, 535 (6th...