United States v. Lebron

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL LEBRON, Defendant.

No. 3:23-CR-00056-JMK-MMS-1

United States District Court, D. Alaska

March 19, 2024

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS [DKT 35] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING [37]

MATTHEW M. SCOBLE, CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. MOTION PRESENTED

The indictment, filed in June 2023, charges Samuel Lebron (“Lebron”) with one count of possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute,^[1]one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking,^[2]one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon,^[3]an enhanced statutory penalty,^[4] and a criminal forfeiture allegation.^[5]

Lebron filed a motion to suppress evidence found on his person and in his residence, as well as unspecified statements pursuant to Miranda. Dkt. 35. In support of this motion, Lebron argues (1) that the Pretrial Enforcement Division (“PED”) officers lacked reasonable suspicion under Terry to detain and frisk him because the basis of the suspicion was an unsubstantiated anonymous tip; (2) that the pat down exceeded its permissible scope when law enforcement seized items from his person; (3) that, after excising the items from his pockets from the analysis, the subsequent arrest was not supported by probable cause; (4) that Alaska law requires cause for its officers to arrest a probationer; (5) that Lebron was subject to an interrogation in violation of Miranda; (6) that the search of his residence was unreasonable because Lebron's privacy interest outweighed the state's interest in this instance. See generally, id.

The government responded that Terry is inapplicable to this matter. Dkt. 36. Instead, it directs this Court to law pertaining specifically to probationers, but nevertheless, it argues that the tip provided reasonable suspicion and that Lebron made no statements that would implicate Miranda. Id. The government also argued that this matter can and should be resolved without an evidentiary hearing.

Lebron, in a separate motion, moved this Court for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. Dkt. 37. He argued that there are contested issues of fact and gaps within discovery that could be resolved with such a hearing. Id.

No evidentiary hearings were held, and this Court finds that one would not be helpful for the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, and for reasons detailed more thoroughly below, this Court DENIES Lebron's motion for an evidentiary hearing at Dkt. 37.

This Court hereby issues its Report and Recommendation regarding Lebron's Motion to Suppress. Dkt. 35. For the reasons below, the Motion to Suppress should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following statement of facts is extracted from the parties' briefs on this motion. While an evidentiary hearing has not been held to establish these facts, this Court will accept the parties' representations where they overlap.

On February 24, 2023, Alaska PED officers and state probation officers went to Lebron's residence to conduct a wellness check/follow-up on a tip that he had aimed a firearm at a woman, threatened to shoot her, and that there were controlled substances in his residence.^[6] However, when the officers arrived, Lebron was not home.^[7]Instead, he was reporting to a PED office. Id. The officers traveled there, searched his person, and found capsules which were believed to contain controlled substances, a large sum of cash, and personal effects such as his phone, wallet, and keys.^[8]Afterwards, the officers transported Lebron back to his residence and used a key provided by him to enter.^[9]Inside, the officers found narcotics and a firearm, and Anchorage Police Department sought and obtained a search warrant. Id. The government represents that it found a loaded Glock 10mm pistol, over 500 grams of methamphetamine, 100 grams of fentanyl, almost 50 grams of heroin, as well as “some LSD,” scales, and transaction ledgers.^[10] The defendant does not reference these.

During this time, the defendant was on probation for a state charge of domestic violence with “L.S.” as the victim.^[11]The government argues that this is the same victim as the person referenced in the tip which precipitated PED officers' contact with him, and Lebron appears to acknowledge that.^[12]Id. One of the conditions of Lebron's probation was as follows: “The defendant shall submit to a search of their person, personal property, residence, vehicle, or any vehicle over which they have control, for the presence of illicit drugs or drug paraphernalia.”^[13]

III. DISCUSSION

Lebron has moved to suppress certain evidence and statements and has separately requested an evidentiary hearing. While Lebron presented many arguments in the alternative for this Court to consider, he has failed to overcome the hurdle that presents itself to probationers: a dramatically decreased expectation of privacy. Because the resolution of this motion is framed with that limitation, the facts that could be developed with an evidentiary hearing would not materially alter this Court's analysis. Instead, to the extent that additional information is needed by the defendant, he has different avenues to pursue.

a. An evidentiary hearing is unnecessary.

In a separate motion,^[14] Lebron asked this Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing.^[15] Lebron advances two specific arguments in support of having a hearing: (1) that the government equates PED officers with state probation, and that, without offering authority, these two groups have different zones of authority under Alaska law; and (2) that he lacks information regarding Lebron's interactions with law enforcement at the PED office, such as whether he was detained initially, how the pat down was performed, and whether he was questioned. Id.

The government did not respond to this motion, but it separately argued that one was unnecessary in response to Lebron's substantive motion.^[16] The government argued that the motion offered only legal questions, rather than material factual disputes. Id.

This Court agrees with the government, but it has its own observations. First, much of the information Lebron seeks is in his possession or knowledge. His counsel is able to interview him and provide an affidavit for this Court to consider. If the government were to then offer a different account, then the disparities could be resolved with an evidentiary hearing. However, no such proffer was made, and the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve factual disputes, not to substitute for investigation or the discovery process. This Court is unconvinced that any difference in the scope of authority between PED officers and state probation officers has a material effect on this Court's analysis. For the reasons stated infra, most of the facts that could be established by such a hearing would not inform the resolution of the case because Lebron erroneously relies on Terry instead of case law specific to probationers. As such, this Court denies Lebron's motion for an evidentiary hearing.

b. Lebron's condition of release should not be read to require probable cause.

Lebron's condition of release should be read as waiving the requirement of probable cause. While it could have been written in a clearer way, this Court finds that the more probable reading of the condition lends itself to this interpretation, and that the rule of lenity does not alter this analysis.

Neither party engaged in a full construction analysis on what this Court believes to be a critical issue, if not the critical issue, for this motion's resolution, but because construction is a matter of law, this Court is equipped to address it, nonetheless. The relevant condition reads as follows: “The defendant shall submit to a search of their person, personal property, residence, vehicle or any vehicle over which they have control, for the presence of illicit drugs or drug paraphernalia.”^[17] The plain text of this condition does not indicate whether law enforcement is required to have probable cause before conducting such a search.

“Under Alaska law, ambiguity exists when the contract as a whole and the extrinsic evidence support differing reasonable interpretations.”^[18] A contract is not ambiguous merely because parties disagree as to its meaning.^[19] Instead, “ambiguity is found to exist ‘only when the contract, taken as a whole, is reasonably subject to differing interpretations.'” Id.

This Court is guided by a few maxims of construction.

• Omitted-case canon. “[A] matter not covered is to be treated as not covered.”^[20] Silence, in other words, can be dispositive.^[21] If a meaning is not conveyed in the text of a provision, courts are to be hesitant to enforce such a meaning.

• Whole-text canon. Courts are “to consider the entire text, in view of its structure and of the physical and logical relation of its many parts.”^[22] It is not enough for a court to simply focus on the provision at issue, but instead, it should consider the entirety of the legal document to determine what its entire meaning conveys.

• The presumption against surplusage. Words and clauses are presumed to have meanings.^[23] “If possible, every word and every provision is to be given effect [. . .] None should be ignored. None should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no consequence.”^[24]“[W]ords with no meaning-language with no substantive effect-should be regarded as the exception rather than the rule.” Id. at 178.

• Lenity. When there is a significant power imbalance, a contract of adhesion, or a public policy favoring a particular party, ambiguities in a provision may

...