Case Law United States v. Lights

United States v. Lights

Document Cited Authorities (27) Cited in (3) Related

PREET BHARARA, U.S. Attorney for the S.D.N.Y., One St. Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007, By: Jilan J. Kamal, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff.

PELUSO & TOUGER, LLP, 70 Lafayette Street, New York, NY 10013, By: David Touger, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant.

OPINION

Sweet, District Judge.

Defendant Carl Lights ("Lights" or the "Defendant") has moved pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to suppress the evidence obtained by the Government after a traffic stop and after the issuance of a search warrant and his statements made following his arrest. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth below, the motion is denied.

Prior Proceedings

Lights was indicted on October 21, 2015 for three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm; one count of narcotics possession with intent to distribute; and one count for the use, carrying, or possession of a firearm during or in relation to a drug trafficking crime. His final, superseding indictment, entered August 25, 2016, added a second count of narcotics possession with intent to distribute.

On May 3, 2016, Lights filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the search of his automobile, home, and office and the statements he made to law enforcement. The motion submits that there was no evidence of any traffic violation by Lights—Lights argues that there is no stop sign in the vicinity of the area where he was stopped, that he provided a sworn affidavit stating that he stopped at every stop sign and traffic light along his route, and that law enforcement failed to identify the location of the stop sign in question. Additionally, the motion submits that the affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant does not contain specific facts connecting Lights' apartment or place of business to the alleged criminal activity, and that Lights clearly and unequivocally asked for an attorney during questioning by law enforcement but continued to be interrogated.

A factual hearing on the motion was held on September 12 and 13, 2016.

The Facts

The facts are adduced from the affidavit of Lights and the testimony of three officers of the New York Police Department ("NYPD") including exhibits admitted into evidence.

On or about September 29, 2015, NYPD Sergeant Michael Eichner ("Sergeant Eichner") was conducting surveillance in an unmarked vehicle parked on the west side of Cruger Avenue, a one-way street in the Bronx. After having learned of Lights' criminal activity and his possession of a firearm, Sergeant Eichner observed Lights walking on the east side of the street, carrying, among other things, two plastic shopping bags, one of which was black, and two messenger bags. Sergeant Eichner lost sight of Lights and started to circle the block in his vehicle in an effort to regain contact.

Half a block away, NYPD Officer Kevin Noonan ("Officer Noonan") and his partner NYPD Officer Gregory Hernandez ("Officer Hernandez"), who were also conducting surveillance in an unmarked police car (the "Unmarked NYPD Police Car"), were parked in the vicinity of the intersection of Cruger Avenue and Pelham Parkway North. Sergeant Eichner advised Officers Noonan and Hernandez what he had observed. Minutes later, Noonan saw a gray, 2004–model Range Rover (the "Vehicle"), which he knew to be Lights' vehicle, approach the intersection of Cruger Avenue and Pelham Parkway North. Both officers observed the Vehicle make a right turn from Cruger Avenue onto Pelham Parkway North without stopping at the stop sign on the corner.

After Officer Noonan saw the Vehicle turn right onto Pelham Parkway North without stopping at the stop sign, he and Officer Hernandez began to follow the Vehicle westbound on Pelham Parkway, turning left on Waring Avenue and then north on White Plains Road. After a few blocks, when the Vehicle reached an appropriate stopping area, Officer Noonan turned on his lights and siren, and the Vehicle pulled over into the parking lot of a gas station.

As Officer Hernandez approached on the passenger's side of the Vehicle, Lights lowered the front passenger window, and Officer Hernandez detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the Vehicle. Through the open front passenger window, Officer Hernandez saw a black plastic shopping bag on the front passenger seat, the top of which was open. Inside the black shopping bag, Officer Hernandez saw a large, clear plastic bag resembling a Ziplock bag that appeared to be filled with marijuana.

Officer Hernandez then heard Officer Noonan instruct Lights to exit the Vehicle. Lights became agitated and refused to comply and simultaneously began to roll up the windows of the Vehicle. Officer Hernandez saw Lights reach for the gear shift, and Officer Hernandez opened the passenger door to stop Lights from fleeing. The passenger door opened and, as Lights drove away, the black plastic shopping bag that had been resting on the front passenger seat fell out.

During the car chase that ensued, Officer Hernandez saw Lights throw a black object from the front passenger window of the Vehicle in the vicinity of Waring Avenue and Mace Avenue.

Several blocks later Lights pulled over and was placed under arrest. NYPD officers recovered $621 in cash from Lights' person and 228 tablets of a substance later determined to be oxycodone, which were found loose in a paper bag inside a messenger bag found inside the Vehicle. Responding officers to the arrest scene retrieved the black plastic shopping bag at the gas station, and an NYPD laboratory later determined that the dried plant matter inside weighed more than one pound and tested positive for marijuana. Responding officers also located a loaded, black, .380 caliber Smith & Wesson pistol on the east side (northbound) of Bronx Parkway East between Waring Avenue and Mace Avenue.

Lights was transported to the 49th Precinct. While at the precinct, Lights participated in an interview with NYPD Detective David Kelly ("Det. Kelly"), which was videotaped. At the outset of the interview, Lights was advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), which were read aloud to him by the interviewing detective. The following exchange took place:

Det. Kelly: You have the right to remain silent and to refuse any questions. Do you understand?
Lights: Yes.
Det. Kelly: Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?
Lights: Yes.
Det. Kelly: You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during your questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?
Lights: Yes. Can I call my attorney?
Det. Kelly: Of course you can.
Lights: I ain't gonna call him yet, but I need to call a couple, a couple different...
Det. Kelly: [begins to speak]
[Overtalk]
Lights: [waves off detective]
Det. Kelly: If you want to call him, we can call him.
Lights: No, know what I'm saying, we can, we can speaking ... then I'd like to call.
Det. Kelly: Ok. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you, without cost. Do you understand?
Lights: Yes, I do.
Det. Kelly: If you do not have an attorney available, you have the right to remain silent until you've had the opportunity to consult one. Do you understand?
Lights: Yes, I do.
Det. Kelly: Now that I have advised you of your rights, are you willing to answer questions?
Lights: [Gesturing] Yeah, the reason why I could answer questions is I could refuse anytime.
Det. Kelly: Yeah. Are you willing to answer questions, yes or no?
Lights: Yes, yeah.
Det. Kelly: Ok.

A search warrant application was subsequently prepared. Special Agent Christopher Quinn ("Agent Quinn") of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI") executed an affidavit in support of the warrant application to search Lights' apartment (the "Apartment") and his business, C & J Computer and Cell Phone Doctors (the "Store") in the Bronx.

Agent Quinn summarized in his affidavit the facts surrounding the arrest of Lights on September 29, 2015, including Sergeant Eichner's observation of Lights with the black plastic shopping bag. Agent Quinn stated that, based on his training and experience, drug dealers often store their product, as well as firearms, cash, and other indicia of narcotics trafficking, in a secure location such as an apartment or office over which the drug dealer has control. Agent Quinn also stated that, based on his review of telephone calls placed by Lights while in custody at the Vernon C. Bains Center, a New York Department of Corrections facility, there was probable cause to believe that Lights was the only person with a full set of keys to the Apartment. During several of these calls, Lights indicated that he was the only one with keys to "the bottom lock," which Agent Quinn understood to mean that Lights was the only one with access and control over the Apartment.

He therefore concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Lights stored the marijuana in his Apartment; had brought the marijuana down to the street in the black plastic shopping bag; and had placed the black plastic shopping bag on the front passenger seat of the Vehicle, where it was observed during the traffic stop and later recovered at the gas station.

Agent Quinn further stated in his affidavit that the social media websites associated with the Store provided probable cause to believe that evidence and instrumentalities of narcotics trafficking and firearms would be found at the Store, that the Twitter feed of the Store contains various photographs of the interior and exterior of the store interspersed with photographs of Lights smoking what appears to be marijuana, a jar full of a substance that appears to be marijuana, as well as rolling papers and a lighter. Based on his training and experience, Agent Quinn concluded that there was probable cause...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2021
Cooper v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC
"... ... ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Defendant. 20-CV-7451 (KMK) United States District Court, S.D. New York. Signed August 9, 2021 553 F.Supp.3d 90 Timothy J. Peter, ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont – 2023
United States v. Jackson
"... ... Rocha-Gomez, 412 F.Supp.3d 369, 372-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ... (noting HSI agent submitted affidavit in support of probable ... cause and HSI agents executed search warrant in case ... involving “narcotics conspiracy”); United ... States v. Lights ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2016
Buonasera v. Honest Co.
"... ... The HONEST COMPANY, INC., Defendant. 16 Civ. 1125 (VM) United States District Court, S.D. New York. Signed September 23, 2016 208 F.Supp.3d 558 Adrienne D ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2021
Ostermeier-McLucas v. Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.
"... ... CORP. & Rite Aid of New York, Inc., Defendants.20-CV-2915 (ARR) (SJB)United States District Court, E.D. New York.Signed July 15, 2021 Rachel Dapeer, Dapeer Law, P.A., Andrew ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2019
Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC, 18 Civ. 6936 (LLS)
"... ... 6936 (LLS)United States District Court, S.D. New York.Signed April 18, 2019377 F.Supp.3d 243Kim E. Richman, Esq., ... "

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 — Southern District of New York – 2021
Cooper v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC
"... ... ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Defendant. 20-CV-7451 (KMK) United States District Court, S.D. New York. Signed August 9, 2021 553 F.Supp.3d 90 Timothy J. Peter, ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont – 2023
United States v. Jackson
"... ... Rocha-Gomez, 412 F.Supp.3d 369, 372-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ... (noting HSI agent submitted affidavit in support of probable ... cause and HSI agents executed search warrant in case ... involving “narcotics conspiracy”); United ... States v. Lights ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2016
Buonasera v. Honest Co.
"... ... The HONEST COMPANY, INC., Defendant. 16 Civ. 1125 (VM) United States District Court, S.D. New York. Signed September 23, 2016 208 F.Supp.3d 558 Adrienne D ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2021
Ostermeier-McLucas v. Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.
"... ... CORP. & Rite Aid of New York, Inc., Defendants.20-CV-2915 (ARR) (SJB)United States District Court, E.D. New York.Signed July 15, 2021 Rachel Dapeer, Dapeer Law, P.A., Andrew ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2019
Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC, 18 Civ. 6936 (LLS)
"... ... 6936 (LLS)United States District Court, S.D. New York.Signed April 18, 2019377 F.Supp.3d 243Kim E. Richman, Esq., ... "

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