United States v. Mamoth

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JIMMY JAMES MAMOTH JR., Defendant.

No.1:19-CR-00146-MAC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION

December 22, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

The Defendant, Jimmy James Mamoth, Jr., was indicted and charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (Attempted Bank Robbery). Mamoth proceeds pro se in his defense, with standby counsel appointed by the court.

Pending before the undersigned is Mamoth's Motion to Suppress. (Dkt. No. 110.) The Government filed a response to the Defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 116), and the undersigned magistrate judge heard testimony and oral argument on July 9, 2020. On July 13, 2020, Mamoth entered a plea of guilty before United States District Judge Marcia Crone. (Dkt. Nos. 139, 141.) As a result of Mamoth's guilty plea, Judge Crone issued an order denying his pending pro se motions, including the Motion to Suppress addressed in this Report. (Dkt. No. 143.) On October 13, 2020, Mamoth filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. (Dkt. No. 159.) On November 20, 2020, in a status conference conducted by Judge Crone via video, Mamoth asked the court for permission to withdraw his guilty plea. (Dkt. No. 176.) Judge Crone rejected Mamoth's plea agreement, and consequently, he withdrew his guilty plea. (Dkt. 177.) On December 7, 2020, Mamoth filed a motion to adopt previously filed motions, and Judge Crone granted his request in part. (Dkt. Nos. 183, 184.) His trial is currently set for January 11, 2021. (Dkt. No. 179.)

After careful consideration of Mamoth's request and the evidence of record, the undersigned recommends denying the motion to suppress.

I. DEFENDANT'S MOTION

Mamoth seeks to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the stop and search of his vehicle, including a computer and cell phone that were searched pursuant to multiple search warrants (one on October 2, 2019, two on October 11, 2019, and one on June 4, 2020).¹ At the hearing, he advanced several legal theories in support of his request. First, Mamoth claims that there was no probable cause for the initial stop. Second, he claims that the inventory vehicle search was conducted in violation of the Liberty County Sheriff Department's ("LCSD") protocol. Third, he challenges the legal sufficiency of the search warrants issued for his vehicle, cellphone, and computer.

II. GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE

The Government asks the court to deny Mamoth's motion because (1) the traffic stop was based on probable cause; and (2) the search warrants that followed were based on probable cause and executed in good faith.

III. EVIDENCE

During the hearing on the instant motion, the Government called FBI Agent Nathan Moss who testified to the facts surrounding Mamoth's arrest and the subsequent seizure of evidence. Court's Exhibit 1 (Dkt. No. 136-1, "Court's Ex. 1") includes the search warrant applications,supporting affidavits, and actual warrants issued in this case. The Defendant's Exhibit 2 (Dkt. No. 136-2, "Def. Ex. 2")) includes the following:

1. TDPS Supplemental Report by Trooper Preston Gustavsen

2. Dispatch Report

3. Investigator McQueen's Report Dated 10/01/2019

4. Report of Forensic Examination dated April 27, 2020

5. FBI evidence entry dated 10/7/2019

6. Deputy Daniel McMullan Report dated 9/27/2019

7. FBI Synopsis of Incident dated 10/4/2019

8. LCSD Vehicle Inventory

9. Personal Notes

Agent Moss testified that he responded to the Texas First Bank at the request of local law enforcement to investigate an attempted bank robbery on September 27, 2019. He testified that a witness reported seeing a man wearing a mask from the movie "Scream" carrying a bag heading toward the bank. This witness assumed the man was a potential robber and honked his horn and accelerated toward him. The suspect ran into the woods behind the bank. Agent Moss testified that the witness was familiar with the area and knew there was only one route exiting the wooded area where the suspect fled. The FBI Report states that the witness saw a tan Toyota Tundra pickup truck exit the woods from this dirt road exit at a high rate of speed. (Def. Ex., p. 32.) The witness recorded the license plate number and provided it to law enforcement. (Id.) LCSD officers were dispatched and Texas Highway Patrol stopped the tan Tundra with a matching license plate in Cleveland, Texas, approximately 45 minutes after the incident was reported. (Id.) Officers completed a search of the wooded area, but did not recover any items related to the robbery (weapon, mask, or hoodie). (Def. Ex. 2, p. 30.)

Agent Moss testified that he reviewed the still and video footage from the bank which showed the suspect lurking around the bank wearing a "Scream" mask, gloves, a heavy jacket, and jeans. These pictures are contained in Court's Ex. 1, p. 4.

Trooper Gustavsen's supplemental report states that he was advised by LCSD dispatch to locate a brown Toyota Tundra pickup truck, with license plate MHZ4119, that was connected to a possible bank robbery. (Def. Ex. 2, p. 1.) Trooper Gustavsen located the vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. (Id.) Mamoth immediately pulled to the side of the road and exited the vehicle. (Id.) He was wearing a ball cap, glasses, white shirt, blue jeans, and black and white shoes. (Id.) Mamoth was sweating and his lower pant legs and shoes were wet and muddy. (Id.) Trooper Gustavsen looked "inside the truck and could see a black satchel that a witness described the suspect wearing at the time of the incident." (Id.) Mamoth did not give consent for Trooper Gustavsen to search his vehicle. (Id.) Mamoth was transported to the Cleveland Annex pending investigation of the attempted bank robbery, and his vehicle was towed and stored for further investigation. (Id., Def. Ex. 2, p. 11.) Mamoth was photographed wearing black and white shoes and blue jeans that were wet and dirty, matching the jeans and shoes captured on the bank surveillance video and described by the witness.² (Court's Ex. 1., 7.)

After detaining Mamoth, LCSD officers and FBI agents conducted a tow inventory of the vehicle. (Court's Ex. 1, p. 5.) This inventory search revealed a duffel bag containing a Halloween-style mask matching the mask worn by the suspect outside Texas First Bank, two dark hooded jackets, light-colored gloves, plastic bags, and an airsoft style plastic replica gun meant to resemble a Beretta 9mm pistol. (Id.)

On October 2, 2019, FBI Agent Moss presented an application for a search warrant to search Mamoth's Toyota Tundra to Magistrate Judge Keith Giblin.³ (Court's Ex. 1, p. 1.) AgentMoss's application contained an application and affidavit that states there is "probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime, fruits of a crime, and other items illegally possess[ed] in violation of [18 U.S.C. § 2113]." (Id., p. 2.) The application contained photographs of the suspect at the crime scene and Mamoth after his arrest (which showed the same blue jeans and tennis shoes) and the items collected as a result of the LCSD tow inventory. The search warrant application was approved by Judge Giblin, and consequently FBI agents seized two USB storage flash drives, one Black Samsung cell phone, one laptop computer, and one Black LG cell phone #L59911005. (Id.) Agent Moss submitted applications for search warrants to search these electronic devices, including the "information" associated with these devices, which were also approved by Judge Giblin. (Court's Ex. 1, p. 17-60.)

IV. DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to suppress all evidence derived from:

Traffic Stop on September 27, 2019,

LCSD Vehicle Inventory,

Search Warrant dated October 2, 2019,

Search Warrant dated October 11, 2019,

Search Warrant dated October 17, 2019, and

Search Warrant dated June 4, 2020.

(Dkt. No. 110.) Mamoth alleges that his initial stop, seizure, detention and arrest lacked probable cause and that the resulting tow inventory was in bad faith because it was solely for investigative purposes. He claims that the subsequent warrants are "fruits of the poisonous tree," insufficient on their face, overbroad, lack particularity, and violat his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He claims that the subsequent searches of his electronic devices from January 8, 2020 to April 21, 2020 were "illegal." (Id.)

The Government responds that arresting officers had probable cause for the initial stop and arrest and that, consequently, all searches were valid under the Fourth Amendment.

A. Traffic Stop

Mamoth contends that the initial traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures because the officer lacked probable cause to believe he was involved in the attempted bank robbery. A traffic stop must be "(1) 'justified at its inception'; and (2) 'reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.'" United States v. Young, 816 F. App'x 993, 996 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1968)).

The evidence shows that an eyewitness to the crime, who was in his vehicle in the bank parking lot, saw the suspect run into the woods behind the bank. Agent Moss testified that the witness was familiar with the area and located the roadside exit of the wooded property where the suspect fled. The witness did not see the suspect get into the vehicle, but saw a vehicle driving out of the wooded exit at a high rate of speed. The witness followed the vehicle and was able to identify it as a brown Toyota Tundra, with Texas license plate #MHZ4119. (Id.) Forty-five minutes after the incident, a DPS Trooper, P. Gustavsen, located the suspect vehicle and conducted a traffic stop. (Def. Ex. 2., p. 1.)

Trooper Gustavsen had an accurate description of the suspected getaway vehicle from an eyewitness, which included the make and model and a precise...