United States v. Myles

1

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Maurice Lamar Myles, Defendant.

No. 22-cr-205 (MJD/TNL)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 16, 2023

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

TONY N. LEUNG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Robert M. Lewis, United States Attorney's Office, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 (for the Government); and

Manny K. Atwal and Matthew Deates, Office of the Federal Defender 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 107, Minneapolis, MN 55415 (for Defendant).

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court, United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, on Defendant Maurice Lamar Myles' Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure, ECF No. 23. This motion has been referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation to the district court, the Honorable Michael J. Davis, District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and D. Minn. Local Rule 72.1.

A hearing on the motion was held December 13, 2022. ECF No. Assistant United States Attorney Robert M. Lewis appeared on behalf of the United States of America (the “Government”). Attorneys Manny K. Atwal and Matthew Deates appeared on behalf of Defendant. Post-hearing briefing is now complete, and these motions are ripe for a determination by the Court.

II. FINDINGS

At the December 13 hearing, the Court heard testimony from Minnesota Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Investigator Troy Lennander. The Government offered and the Court received: Government Exhibit 1, Defendant's DOC Conditions of Release; Government Exhibit 2, body worn camera footage from four DOC investigators; and Government Exhibit 3, a still photo of Defendant from the body worn camera footage.

Based upon the file and documents contained therein, along with the testimony and exhibits presented, the undersigned Magistrate Judge makes the following findings.

A. Background

Investigator Lennander is a licensed peace officer and has been employed with the DOC for over six years. Tr. 7:22-8:2, 9:13-14, ECF No. 39.^[1] As an officer with the DOC's fugitive apprehension team, Investigator Lennander's primary duties include locating and arresting offenders with felony warrants for alleged violations of supervised release. Tr. 8:14-22, 9:9-12, 28:21-25. He frequently conducts searches of offenders at their homes and assists other agents in conducting warrantless searches. Tr. 28:18-25. He does not supervise individuals who are on supervised release in the community. Tr. 28:14-17.

B. Investigation and Surveillance of Dai'quan Husten

For several months leading up to April 2022, Investigator Lennander conducted an investigation into the whereabouts of Dai'quan Husten. Tr. 11:22-12:1, 29:17-21. Husten had an active DOC warrant, issued 13 months earlier, due to an alleged violation of his supervised release. Tr. 11:11-21, 12:2-4, 14:11-13, 29:1-10, 32:6-10. Investigator Lennander spent approximately 40 hours trying to locate Husten. Tr. 29:22-30:4, 51:1420. Through his investigation, he learned that Husten was on supervised release for a weapons offense, was a known gang member, and had a brother named Maurice Myles (“Defendant”). Tr. 12:8-18.

Investigator Lennander did not investigate Defendant specifically, but learned that he spent time with Husten, was a known gang member, and was on supervised release for a felony weapons-related offense. Tr. 12:19-25, 30:5-7, 51:7-10, 51:21-52:5. Defendant did not have an active warrant, and Investigator Lennander never called Defendant's supervising agent to discuss his conditions of supervised release. Tr. 32:11-12, 52:6-13. Investigator Lennander testified, however, that there are standard terms of supervised release for individuals convicted of violent offenses or with gang activity in their past. Tr. 46:19-25. Those conditions typically include restrictions on associations with other gang members, though there can be exceptions for contact with family members or other exceptions approved by the supervising agent. Tr. 31:2-21, 47:1-3.

On April 29, 2022, Investigator Lennander, his partner Investigator Ryan Pankratz, and a few other investigators went to an apartment building in Oakdale because they had intelligence that Husten was at the building. Tr. 10:12-11:10. Investigator Lennander testified that he and the other investigators were there for the sole purpose of arresting Husten. Tr. 32:13-24.

At some point that day, the investigators stopped surveilling the apartment building and went to take a break about four or five blocks away. Tr. 13:9-16. While on break, they observed Husten walk by with an individual that Investigator Lennander recognized as Defendant. Tr. 13:17-22, 32:25-33:20, 36:16-18, 45:25-46:8. Husten and Defendant were heading west and appeared to be heading towards a nearby store. Tr. 13:23-14:1. The investigators did not observe any weapons or contraband on Husten or Defendant. Tr. 33:21-24, 39:18-21, 46:9-13.

According to Investigator Lennander, his team formulated a plan for some of the investigators to follow Husten and Defendant to the store and others to go back to the apartment building, continue surveillance, and stop Husten and Defendant when they got there. Tr. 14:2-17, 36:21-23. They planned to arrest Husten on his DOC warrant. Tr. 14:18-20, 47:9-11. They also planned to detain Defendant because they believed he was violating the conditions of his supervised release by being with Husten, a known gang member. Tr. 16:16-21. According to Investigator Lennander, after detaining Defendant, investigators would then contact his supervised release agent to see if the agent wanted to violate Defendant or not. Tr. 14:21-15:3, 34:8-11, 47:9-23. For officer safety reasons, they also planned to handcuff and frisk Defendant for weapons given that he would be in the immediate area while officers executed an arrest warrant on Husten. Tr. 26:9-25, 48:10-16.

Most of the team, including Investigator Lennander, returned to the apartment building in their unmarked vehicles and waited outside the building. Tr. 36:24-38:4. The investigators were in plain clothes, wearing items such as tennis shoes, jeans, cargo shorts, and a baseball cap. Tr. 38:6-24. A few blocks away, Investigator Pankratz followed Husten and Defendant to a nearby convenience store. Tr. 14:4-5, 36:16-20. He kept an eye on them as they entered the store, exited the store, and headed back to the apartment building. Tr. 45:4-24.

C. Investigators' Encounter with Husten and Defendant

Investigators observed Husten and Defendant walking towards the apartment building. Tr. 17:6-12, 39:7-12. When they approached the southwest corner door of the apartment building, Investigator Lennander's team approached. Tr. 17:13-15, 39:13-17. The investigators jumped out of their unmarked vehicles, walked quickly towards Husten and Defendant, pointed their firearms at them, and started yelling commands. Tr. 39:258; accord Ex. 2, Lennander's Body Worn Camera, at 00:19-00:38. The investigators ordered Husten and Defendant down to the ground at gunpoint. Tr. 17:16-18.

According to Investigator Lennander, Husten cooperated with commands and got down on the ground, but Defendant instead walked towards the apartment door. Tr. 17:1918:1. Defendant got close to the apartment door, but Investigator Pankratz called Defendant back and told him not to walk towards the door. Tr. 18:2-7. Defendant complied and turned around. Tr. 18:8-10. Investigator Pankratz then approached Defendant, grabbed Defendant's arms, and started putting them behind his back. Tr. 41:2042:12. Defendant complied and did not resist. Tr. 41:13-23; accord Ex. 2, Lennander Body Worn Camera, at 00:32-01:03.

As Investigator Pankratz was placing Defendant's hands behind his back, Investigator Lennander approached Defendant from the front. Tr 18:13. According to Investigator Lennander, he “observed a very heavy object that [he] believed to be a firearm in the front hoodie pocket that [Defendant] was wearing.” Tr. 18:13-25. He testified that there was a very heavy object in the front pocket of Defendant's sweatshirt that was causing the pocket to sag and hang down. Tr. 18:25-19:9, 22:10-23; see also Ex. 2, Lennander's Body Worn Camera, at 00:37; Ex. 3.

Investigator Lennander grabbed the front pocket of Defendant's sweatshirt. Tr. 42:24-43:13; see also Ex. 2, Lennander's Body Worn Camera, at 00:40. He did not reach into the pocket, but instead grabbed the front of the sweatshirt and gripped the object from the outside of the sweatshirt. Tr. 19:15-21. Investigator Lennander testified that he “immediately recognized it when [he] grabbed it as a firearm.” Tr. 19:12-13, 19:22-20:2, 49:16-19. He testified that in his experience as a law enforcement officer, he has observed an object in a person's pocket that appeared to be a handgun and it did in fact turn out to be a handgun. Tr. 20:3-20. Investigator Lennander notified his team that he located a firearm by yelling, “We got a gun. Gun, gun, gun.” See Ex. 2, Lennander's Body Worn Camera, at 00:40-00:42; Ex. 2, Pankratz Body Worn Camera at 01:10-01:12; see also Tr. 19:13-14, 24:1-8, 43:14-21. Investigator Lennander kept his hand on the firearm to keep it secure while Investigator Pankratz finished handcuffing Defendant. Tr. 24:13-22, 49:2025, 50:1-9. Defendant was handcuffed without incident. Tr. 24:20-22. Investigator Lennander then removed the firearm from Defendant's sweatshirt pocket, secured it in a plastic evidence bag, and put it in his vehicle. Tr. 24:23-25:3; accord Ex. 2, Lennander's Body Worn Camera, at 01:28-02:09. The investigators then brought Husten and Defendant to their squad vehicles. Tr. 25:10-14.

While Investigator Lennander's original plan was to...