United States v. Manuel

496 F.Supp.3d 1263

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Robert John MANUEL, Jr., Defendant.

Case No. 4:20-cr-00139-SMR-CFB

United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division.

Signed October 21, 2020

Kristin M. Herrera, United States Attorney's Office, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

Melanie S. Keiper, Federal Public Defenders Office, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

STEPHANIE M. ROSE, JUDGE

Defendant Robert John Manuel, Jr. moves to suppress evidence of gun and drug possession he claims was obtained by virtue of an illegal search of the car he was driving. [ECF Nos. 26; 41]. The Court received testimony and evidence at a hearing held on October 2, 2020. For the reasons discussed below, as well as those stated on the record, Manuel's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Officers assigned to the Des Moines Police Department Special Enforcement Team ("SET") were conducting surveillance on a residence in Pleasant Hill, Iowa, where Manuel was known to reside with his girlfriend on July 21, 2020. Officer Brady Pratt, a plain clothes SET officer, observed Manuel drive into the apartment complex parking lot in a silver Chevrolet Impala.¹ He was there only a short time before Officer Pratt observed Manuel return to the car to leave, carrying a black fanny pack. Officer Pratt also observed Manuel adjusting something under the seat and in the area surrounding the driver's side area of the vehicle. Based on the ongoing investigation into Manuel, Officer Pratt knew Manuel to be suspended from driving. Officer Pratt relayed his observations of Manuel's movements in the silver Chevrolet Impala to other SET officers stationed nearby, who in turn communicated their observations of the vehicle to uniformed officers parked a short distance away. The SET officers described the silver Chevrolet Impala and Manuel's clothing to the uniformed officers and requested that they conduct a traffic stop of Manuel for driving with a suspended license.

Manuel drove the silver Chevrolet Impala into a parking space in front of a nearby gas station and had already exited and locked the vehicle when Des Moines Police Officers Jeffrey Davis, Luke Eblen, and Lucas Kramer approached to detain him. After placing Manuel in handcuffs, conducting a pat-down search, and removing him from the immediate vicinity, the officers informed Manuel his license was suspended from driving. Officers examined the interior of the locked car through the windows and observed Manuel's driver's license near the center console in plain view. Also within plain view on the passenger seat was the black fanny pack officers had observed Manuel carrying from the apartment, which had a distinctive, repeating "Puma" brand logo in large white letters across its black strap. The officers asked Manuel for permission to access the silver Chevrolet Impala to retrieve Manuel's driver's license, which he declined to give. Officer Kramer proceeded to unlock the vehicle using Manuel's keys and reached in to grab the driver's license. Upon doing so, he saw a firearm in the pocket of the driver's side door in plain view. Officers at the scene later found marijuana shake under the driver's seat and center console area. Manuel admitted to possessing the handgun and marijuana in post-Miranda admissions to the arresting officers.

Prior to the search, Manuel was known to law enforcement to affiliate with the OTB ("Only the Brothers") street gang. He was also known to law enforcement as having prior firearms convictions. The Government had begun investigating Manuel for gun- and drug-related crimes in early July 2020, after he made a series of posts to his private account on Snapchat showing him in possession of marijuana and a handgun.² Using undercover law enforcement accounts, Des Moines Police Officers Ryan Garrett, Brian Minnehan, and Luke Harden connected with Manuel on the social media app and recorded several videos and images he posted in the days and weeks leading up to the search depicting himself with a gun and suspected drugs. See [Gov't Exs. 1–4]. Videos and images posted on Manual's account, and then recorded by Officer Garrett on July 8, 2020, show what appears to be marijuana in the driver's seat of a vehicle consistent in appearance with the silver Chevrolet Impala he was driving when arrested on July 21, 2020, and a handgun wedged between the seat and center console. [Gov't Ex. 1]. On July 14, 2020, Officer Minnehan recorded a video from Manual's account of Manuel carrying what appears to be the same black and white Puma brand fanny pack seized July 21, 2020; the video pans the camera to zoom in on the contents of the fanny pack, revealing a firearm and a baggie containing a green leafy substance. [Gov't Ex. 2]. Yet another video recorded by Officer Harden on July 17, 2020, shows Manuel smoking inside a residence with several individuals, one of whom is a known OTB member; Manuel again has the black Puma fanny pack while what appears to be a digital scale and a handgun rest in front of him. [Gov't Ex. 3].³ Finally, Officer Minnehan recorded a video the day before the search on July 20, 2020, that shows Manuel sitting in the driver's seat of a Chevrolet vehicle again consistent with the same interior as that shown in the video recorded on July 8, 2020 with a handgun located in the driver's door pocket.

After his arrest on July 21, 2020, Manuel was charged with one count of Unlawful User in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). He presently seeks to suppress evidence of the gun, ammunition, and marijuana collected from the search of the vehicle, as well as the post-arrest admission made in the course of his interrogation resulting from the search.

II. DISCUSSION

The Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. A search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable—unless an exception applies.

Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). The automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment "allows law enforcement to ‘search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity.’ " United States v. Brown , 634 F.3d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Davis , 569 F.3d 813, 817 (8th Cir. 2009) ). "Probable cause exists where there is a ‘fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’ " United States v. Donnelly , 475 F.3d 946, 954 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) ). The officer's subjective motivation for the search is irrelevant; common sense and the relevant facts of what was known to the officer under the totality of the circumstances inform whether an officer had probable cause to conduct a search. Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U.S. 398, 404, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) ; see also United States v. Kennedy , 427 F.3d 1136, 1141 (8th Cir. 2005). Finally, there must be a nexus between the evidence sought and the place to be searched. United States v. Johnson , 848 F.3d 872, 878 (8th Cir. 2017) ; cf. United States v. Schermerhorn , 71 F. Supp. 3d 948, 956 (E.D. Mo. 2014).

The Government first contends probable cause existed for officers to enter the locked vehicle in order to retrieve Manuel's driver's license as evidence of his crime of driving while suspended. But the license was not needed to identify Manuel—the arresting officers' statements to and about Manuel clearly show and leave no question that they knew exactly who he was. In fact, their knowledge of his identity can be the only way the stop was justified under this theory of probable cause. Several officers were already surveilling Manuel and communicated his identity and the fact of his suspended license to the arresting officers. At the scene of the arrest, many of the officers addressed Manuel by name; Manuel never attempted to conceal his identity or claimed to be anyone other than himself. Cf. Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332, 335–36, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009). And contrary to the Government's position, the driver's license itself is not evidence of a crime. The license, itself, would not state whether or not Manuel's driving privileges had been suspended; its usefulness to officers in this instance does not associate it with criminal activity. See United States v. Hatten , 68 F.3d 257, 261 (8th Cir. 1995) ; cf. United States v. Hines , 449 F.3d 808, 814–15 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding probable cause existed to believe evidence of defendant's alias and false identification used for his suspected fraud); United States v. Murphy , 261 F.3d 741, 744 (8th Cir. 2001) (finding driver's license to be evidence of a crime to support probable cause because its visibility suggested the defendant had violated Iowa law by providing police with false information about his identity when he told officers he did not have any form of identification on his person).

Probable cause did exist, however, for the officers to search the vehicle for drugs and firearms. This case is similar to United States v. Blaylock , 535 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008), where probable cause existed to support a search of the defendant's car parked next to his house when an undercover investigation had revealed a pattern of drug dealing involving the use of that vehicle. Law enforcement officers conducting a sting operation observed the defendant walk to a blue Nissan four-door car and reach into the vehicle before returning to the undercover agent to sell him drugs. Id. at 924. After conducting surveillance on the defendant's residence, officers set up another controlled-buy operation where the defendant's associate left the residence in the blue Nissan to travel to where the undercover agent was located, where they exchanged money for drugs before returning to the...