United States v. Morris

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DIMETRIUS MORRIS,

Criminal No. 20-263

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

August 30, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert J. Colville, United States District Judge.

Before the Court is the Motion to Suppress Evidence (ECF No. 43) filed by Defendant Dimetrius Morris. Defendant seeks to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of what he asserts was an unlawful, and unlawfully extended, traffic stop, as well as any other evidence the Government intends to introduce that was obtained as fruits of this purportedly tainted encounter. The Motion to Suppress has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.

I. Procedural History

Defendant was arraigned on January 6, 2022 on an Indictment charging him with violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(C) (Possession with Intent to Distribute Quantities of Cocaine, Fentanyl, and Methamphetamine); 18 U.S.C. §924 (c)(1)(A)(i) (Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime); and 18 U.S.C §922 (g)(1) (Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon). Defendant filed his Motion to Suppress on February 21, 2023, alongside several other pretrial motions that have already been addressed by the Court. The Government filed a Response (ECF No. 44) to the Motion to Suppress on March 14, 2023, and the Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 45) on March 21, 2023.

The Court held a hearing on the Motion to Suppress on April 21, 2023. During that hearing, the Government offered the testimony of Corporal Joseph Zajac, the officer who conducted the traffic stop at issue in the Motion to Suppress. The Defendant called Bianca D'Auria, an investigator with the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to testify. The Government introduced one exhibit during the hearing, a photograph of the license plate area of Defendant's car that was taken at the time of the traffic stop (Ex. 1). The Defense also introduced one exhibit, which consisted of four photographs taken by Ms. D'Auria in April of 2023 depicting, from different angles and distances, the intersection wherein Corporal Zajac initiated the traffic stop.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Defense requested to submit supplemental briefing, and the Court subsequently entered an Order (ECF No. 48) providing deadlines for supplemental briefs and responses thereto. On July 5, 2023, the Government filed its Supplemental Brief (ECF No. 52), and Defendant filed his Supplemental Brief and Proposed Findings of Fact (ECF No. 53). The Government filed its Response (ECF No. 54) to Defendant's Supplemental Brief on July 5, 2023. Defendant filed his Response (ECF No. 55) to the Government's Supplemental Brief on July 26, 2023.

II. Legal Standard

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures” of their “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Subject to certain exceptions, evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” United States v. Bey, 911 F.3d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 2018). “A traffic stop is a ‘seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, ‘even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.'” United States v. Delfin-Colina, 464 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979)). “Because an ordinary traffic stop is analogous to an investigative detention, it has been historically reviewed under the investigatory detention framework first articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).” Id.

With respect to traffic stops generally, the Third Circuit has explained:

Taken together, then, Terry and [Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996)] stand for the proposition that a traffic stop will be deemed a reasonable “seizure” when an objective review of the facts shows that an officer possessed specific, articulable facts that an individual was violating a traffic law at the time of the stop. In other words, an officer need not be factually accurate in her belief that a traffic law had been violated but, instead, need only produce facts establishing that she reasonably believed that a violation had taken place. Consequently, a reasonable mistake of fact “does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” [United States v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271, 1275 (11th Cir.2003)]; see also Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 185, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) (noting that factual determinations made by government agents need not “always be correct,” but they always have to be “reasonable”); United States v. Tibbetts, 396 F.3d 1132, 1138 (10th Cir. 2005).

Delfin-Colina, 464 F.3d at 396-97 (footnote omitted). With respect to traffic stops that are extended, the Supreme Court of the United States has explained:

Here, the initial seizure of respondent when he was stopped on the highway was based on probable cause and was concededly lawful. It is nevertheless clear that a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 124, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984). A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407-08 (2005); see also Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015) (“Like a Terry stop, the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure's ‘mission'-to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Caballes, 543 U.S., at 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, and attend to related safety concerns.”).

III. Factual Findings

Following the hearing in this matter, and further following review of the Transcript (ECF No. 56) of the hearing and the parties' submissions, the Court makes the following findings of fact:

While on patrol at around 12:30 a.m. on February 20, 2020, Corporal Zajac was traveling southbound on Stambaugh Street in Sharon, Pennsylvania in his marked police vehicle when he observed a Toyota Corolla traveling in the same direction approximately three to four car lengths ahead of Corporal Zajac's vehicle. Tr. 8:24-10:14, ECF No. 56. Corporal Zajac was the only occupant of the police vehicle at that time. Id. As his vehicle closed the distance to the Corolla, Corporal Zajac observed that the license plate light on the driver's side of the Corolla was not properly functioning, and, more specifically, observed that this light was not illuminated in any manner. Id. at 10:15-11:1; 15:7-21. The license plate light on the passenger's side of the Corolla was lit. Id. at 11:2-3. Corporal Zajac interpreted the malfunctioning of the driver's side license plate light to be a violation of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. Id. at 11:4-9.

The Toyota Corolla eventually stopped at a stop sign, and subsequently turned left onto Division Street. Tr. 11:10-18, ECF No. 56. Corporal Zajac followed the Corolla onto Division Street. Id. at 27:10-18. At that time, Corporal Zajac activated his overhead lights to initiate a traffic stop of the Corolla. Id. at 11:19-24. The Corolla pulled over to a gas station/convenience store, at which time Corporal Zajac also noticed that the center brake light of the vehicle was not functioning. Id. at 12:2-16. At that time, and in addition to the headlights of the two vehicles, there was light emanating from the convenience store and a nearby streetlight. Id. 12:8-14. Corporal Zajac inspected and confirmed that the license plate light on the driver's side of the Corolla was not illuminated, and, upon inspection, believed the light to be factory equipment. Id. at 15:7-21.

Corporal Zajac approached the Toyota Corolla on the driver's side of the vehicle, at which time he observed that the occupants of the vehicle were three adult males, including Defendant, who was seated in the front passenger seat. Tr. 16:5-25, ECF No. 56. Corporal Zajac was not accompanied by another officer as he approached the vehicle. Id. at 16:17-18. The driver's side window of the Corolla was down as Corporal Zajac approached, and, upon reaching the window, Corporal Zajac detected the odor of both loose-leaf marijuana and burning marijuana. Id. at 17:122; 33:9-25.

Corporal Zajac asked the driver of the Toyota Corolla for his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance, and asked the other occupants, including Defendant, for their IDs. Tr. 18:1-12, ECF No. 56. The passengers promptly provided their IDs or identifying information to Corporal Zajac. Id. at 18:16-23. The driver of the car was unable to provide proof of insurance at any point during the stop. Id. at 18:24-19:3. Corporal Zajac requested identifying information from the passengers of the vehicle as a matter of officer safety concern, as he was outnumbered three to one at that juncture and felt that it would be beneficial to know if any of the individuals had outstanding warrants so that he could request backup if he thought it appropriate. Id. at 19:416.

Shortly after requesting the passengers' identification, Corporal Zazado arrived as backup, approached the Toyota Corolla, and informed Corporal Zajac that he also detected the smell of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Tr. 19:17-20:10, ECF No. 56. While he did not ask immediately, Corporal Zazado eventually asked the occupants of the Corolla about marijuana. Id. at 20:11-16. In response, the backseat passenger produced a joint, and the Defendant, who, again, was in the front passenger seat, informed the Corporal that he had...