United States v. Lusk

645 F.Supp.3d 879

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Lawrence LUSK, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. 3:21-CR-100 DRL-MGG

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

Signed September 23, 2022

John M. Maciejczyk, Government Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, South Bend, IN, for Plaintiff.

OPINION AND ORDER

Damon R. Leichty, Judge

The government charged Lawrence Lusk with unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He seeks to suppress all evidence obtained by law enforcement the day he was arrested. He says law enforcement unreasonably searched his workstation at work without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment and then procured an inculpatory statement in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court denies the tandem suppression motions.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

The court held an evidentiary hearing on August 10, 2022.¹ See United States v. Coleman, 149 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 1998). These facts emerge from the evidence and testimony. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d). Additional findings follow in the court's discussion of the arguments.

In the early morning hours of April 30, 2021, Mr. Lusk was working as a temporary employee on the third shift at Plastic Solutions, Inc. (PSI) [ECF 35 at 7-8]. He was assigned to a workstation (station 46) with an injection molding press and a table with a small black trash can underneath [id. 10, 20-22]. Approximately forty other employees were also working third shift [id. 9].

After the midnight hour, Shift Manager Michael Smith learned from an employee (Jazmin Garcia) that another employee (Rocio Alcanter) saw a firearm in a Crown Royal bag at Mr. Lusk's workstation [id. 12, 32-33]. The shift manager approached Mr. Lusk to inquire about the gun [id. 12-13]. On this record, based on the shift manager's testimony, Mr. Lusk confirmed he had a firearm [id. 13]. The shift manager told him to remove it from the building immediately [id.].

About 1:00 a.m., the shift manager called police to report that an employee had brought a firearm into the workplace [id. 11, 13-15]. The shift manager met law enforcement outside the PSI building minutes later [id. 15, 39]. Three officers initially arrived: Officer James Wagner, Officer Alan Wiegand, and Officer David Boutsomsy [id. 39]. They arrived in multiple squad cars, without emergency lights [id. 28, 45-46]. Both Officer Wagner and Officer Wiegand wore body cameras that captured footage from their investigation at PSI [id. 40, 55; see Exs. 1A, 2].

The shift manager went inside PSI with Officer Wagner to retrieve Mr. Lusk [ECF 35 at 16, 40]. They found him at his workstation [id.]. Officer Wagner asked Mr. Lusk if he had a weapon on him, and Mr. Lusk said he didn't [Ex. 1A 0:20]. Officer Wagner then patted Mr. Lusk down and found no weapon [id. 0:25]. Officer Wagner instructed Mr. Lusk to exit the side emergency door [id. 0:35]. Once outside, the shift manager departed while the three officers interacted with Mr. Lusk [ECF 35 at 17, 53].

The four men stood near the closed emergency door; it was dark and not a well-lit area [id. 46]. Officer Wagner asked Mr. Lusk if he had a firearm [Ex. 1A 0:52]. He responded, "No [. . .] my female friend had it, she was here, she worked, but she left." [id.]. Officer Wagner asked Mr. Lusk where the Crown Royal bag was [id. 01:31]. Mr. Lusk replied, "It's gone, sir." [id.]. Officer Wagner clarified, "You've already gotten it out of the shop?" Mr. Lusk confirmed, "Yeah." [id.].

About three minutes into the encounter with Mr. Lusk, Officer Wagner asked his full name and for identification [id. 02:32]. Two minutes later, Mr. Lusk asked if he was under arrest [id. 4:50]. Officer Wagner said, "No, you're being detained though, so you're not free to leave yet." [id.]. Officer Wagner asked Mr. Lusk if he had ever been arrested before, and he said yes [id. 5:27]. About seven minutes into the interaction, Officer Wagner said that his sergeant had arrived, and they would wait to hear from him about what to do next [id. 6:38].

About two minutes later, Officer Wiegand returned from speaking with a PSI coworker (Keneisha Rose), at her car parked outside, about the firearm and learned that she could not find it. He said, "Alright, Lawrence, we're going to detain you. Put your hands behind your back. [. . .] It doesn't mean you're under arrest, we're just detaining you." [Ex. 1A 8:52; ECF 35 at 62]. Mr. Lusk asked why he was being detained as the officer placed handcuffs on him [Ex. 1A 9:00]. The officer said his sergeant would speak to him in a moment [id. 9:04].

While the other officers remained with Mr. Lusk outside, Officer Wiegand entered the PSI factory with the shift manager: "You want to let us in? She can't find it in her car, so he probably still has it in here." [Ex. 2 15:15]. The factory floor was brightly lit. They walked to Mr. Lusk's workstation [id. 16:35]. Officer Wiegand immediately found a coat on the table, and the shift manager confirmed it belonged to Mr. Lusk [id.].

Officer Wiegand patted the coat down and found a Crown Royal bag in the pocket [id.; ECF 35 at 57]. Officer Wiegand then put on plastic gloves and took out his flashlight [Ex. 2 17:30]. Officer Wiegand used his flashlight to see into the Crown Royal bag, and he put his right hand inside to move the contents of the bag around [id. 18:28]. The bag didn't contain a firearm.

Officer Wiegand continued his search of the workstation while the shift manager stood nearby [id. 19:05]. Officer Wiegand shined his flashlight underneath the table [id. 19:45]. He walked around the workstation [id. 19:52]. Officer Wiegand stood in the walkway next to the workstation, then squatted, shone his flashlight with his left hand, and picked up a purple Crown Royal bag that was sitting atop of the half-full trash can [id. 20:16]. The drawstring bag was not pulled closed; but, as Officer Wiegand lifted it, the contents could not be readily seen [id.]. The officer used both hands to open the bag and observed the firearm inside [id.].

About 1:23 a.m. (approximately fourteen minutes into the encounter), Sergeant Paul Daley spoke with Mr. Lusk [Ex. 1A 13:52]. They recognized each other and briefly talked about Mr. Lusk's new job and family [id.]. Sergeant Daley said he needed to read Mr. Lusk his rights and would do so on video in the back of the squad car [id. 14:26]. Mr. Lusk again asked if he was under arrest; Sergeant Daley and another officer both said, "No, you're being detained." [id. 14:58]. Sergeant Daley again said that he needed to put Mr. Lusk in a car so he could read him his rights. Sergeant Daley continued, "You don't have to talk to me, but it would be nice if you did." [id. 15:35].

Sergeant Daley directed Mr. Lusk to sit in the back of the squad car [id.]. Officer Wiegand brought Mr. Lusk his coat from his workstation [id. 17:25]. Officer Wagner read Mr. Lusk his Miranda rights [id. 18:48]. Mr. Lusk said he understood his rights [id. 19:17]. The PSI coworker confirmed the firearm was hers [Ex. 2 28:48].

DISCUSSION

A. Fourth Amendment Protection against Unlawful Searches and Seizures.

Pre-revolutionary writs of assistance permitted roving searches for contraband, and such general warrants allowed searches without any particularized evidence of an offense. Colonial Americans reviled the practice precisely because it placed "the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 625, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886); see also Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 466-67, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000).

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution stamped out suspicionless searches and preserved the right of the people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Caniglia v. Strom, — U.S. —, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 1599, 209 L.Ed.2d 604 (2021); United States v. Ochoa-Lopez, 31 F.4th 1024, 1026 (7th Cir. 2022). As the text suggests, the Fourth Amendment's touchstone is reasonableness. Lange v. California, — U.S. —, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 2017, 210 L.Ed.2d 486 (2021); United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001). The Fourth Amendment protects against the government's unreasonable intrusion into a person's things or of his very person. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 5, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350-51, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967).

When law enforcement works to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing, "reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant," Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995), thereby ensuring that the inferences to support a search are "drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime," Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 382, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014). Warrantless searches "are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009).

That said, "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." Katz, 389 U.S. at 351, 88 S.Ct. 507 (monitoring business call in telephone booth violated caller's privacy interest). "But the extent to which the Fourth Amendment protects people may depend [on] where those people are." Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998). "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz, 389 U.S. at 351, 88 S.Ct. 507. "But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be...