United States v. Payne

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JIMMAR A. PAYNE, Defendant.

Criminal No. 2023-0014

United States District Court, D. Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division

May 30, 2024

Daniel H. Huston, Esq. St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the United States

Lisa L. Brown Williams, Esq. St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILMA A. LEWIS DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Jimmar A Payne's “Motion to Suppress” (Dkt. No. 18) the Government's “Opposition to Motion to Suppress” (Dkt. No. 19), the supplemental briefing by the parties (Dkt. Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34), and the evidence and arguments presented at the suppression hearing. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 31, 2023, the Government filed a Criminal Information against Defendant (Dkt. No. 13).^[1] The Information charged Defendant with one count - knowing possession of a firearm within a distance of 1,000 feet of a school in violation of Title 18 United States Code §§ 922(q)(2)(A) and 924(a)(4).

On August 21, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Suppress, (Dkt. No. 18), which the Government opposes (Dkt. No. 19). This Court held a suppression hearing on December 5, 2023, which was followed by supplemental briefing by the parties. (Dkt. Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34). At the hearing, the Government presented the testimony of two witnesses: Police Officer Almont King and former Police Officer Nick Felicien of the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”). Defendant testified on his own behalf. The following facts emerged from the record established prior to, at, and subsequent to the suppression hearing.^[2]

On January 29, 2022, at approximately 10:16 p.m., Officers King and Felicien were on patrol on the Melvin Evans Highway in the vicinity of the Ricardo Richards Elementary School. (Dkt. No. 30 at 9-10, 50-51). Officer King testified that he noticed a silver colored, two-door Honda Civic with no visible license plate mounted on the rear of the vehicle. Id. at 10. He then activated the blue lights on his marked police cruiser, at which point the driver of the Civic pulled over to the left side of the road. Id. at 9-11. Officer King testified that the basis for the traffic stop was that the Civic had no visible rear license plate. Id. at 11.

According to his testimony, Officer King never saw a rear license plate on the Civic during the traffic stop. Id. at 27-28. Although there was a license plate in the rear window of the vehicle (Government's Exhibit 2), Officer King testified that he could not see it-despite his use of headlights and a flashlight to illuminate the car-because it was very dark outside and the glass on the rear window of the vehicle was heavily tinted. (Dkt. No. 30 at 11, 29-30.). Officer Felicien similarly testified that he saw no rear license plate on the vehicle, despite the police cruiser's headlights shining towards the vehicle. Id. at 50-51; see also (Government's Exhibit 1) (depicting the rear of the vehicle during the traffic stop with no visible rear license plate). On the other hand, Defendant testified that while the rear window was tinted, it wasn't as darkly tinted as the officers claimed. (Dkt. No. 30 at 85-86). Defendant further testified that it wasn't as dark outside as the officers' testimony portrayed, and that some streetlights illuminated the area around the traffic stop. Id. at 86.

All three witnesses testified that Officer King made initial contact with the driver, whom Officer King identified as Defendant Jimmar Payne. Id. at 13, 52, 70. During the initial contact, Officer Felicien stood behind Officer King, more to the rear of the vehicle. Id. at 26, 53. Defendant was sitting in the vehicle in the driver's seat. See id. at 16. Officer King asked Defendant for his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Id. at 14, 70-71. Defendant explained that he had just brought the vehicle down from the States-so he had no insurance or registration for the vehicle-and that he didn't have his physical driver's license on him. Id. at 14, 70-71. Defendant testified that he showed Officer King his driver's license on his phone. Id. at 71. Defendant also testified that he handed Officer King the title and the bill of lading for the vehicle, as well as his insurance for the dealer license plate on the vehicle. Id. Officer King testified that Defendant did not show him the documents he had asked for, but acknowledged that it was possible that Defendant showed him these various documents. Id. at 33-36.

At this point the testimonies of the VIPD Officers and Defendant diverged. According to Officer King, while Defendant was explaining why he did not have the requested documents, Officer King began walking to the front of the vehicle. Id. at 34. Officer King was shining his flashlight inside the car because it was dark outside. Id. at 15. Officer King then observed the hammer and the handle for a firearm protruding from under the driver's seat, within arm's reach of Defendant. Id. at 15-16, 34. Officer King was able to make his observation-despite Defendant sitting in the driver's seat-because (1) Officer King was standing towards the front of the driver's side door from which point he could see the floorboard and (2) Defendant's legs were somewhat spread open. Id. at 35.

Officer King further testified that after making this observation, he asked Defendant if he was in possession of a firearm, to which Defendant stated “yes.” Id. at 18. Officer King then asked Defendant where the firearm was within the vehicle. Id. Defendant stated that it was under the driver's side seat. Id. At that point, Officer King asked Defendant to step out of the vehicle. Id. After Defendant stepped out of the vehicle, Officer King patted him down. Id. at 18. Officer King asked Defendant if he had a license to possess a firearm in the Virgin Islands. Id. at 18. Defendant responded that he did not. Id. Defendant was then placed under arrest for carrying a firearm without a license. Id. at 18. Officer King testified that he believed that Officer Felicien handcuffed Defendant. Id. at 39.

According to Officer Felicien, he was standing at a distance from the vehicle where, although he could see Officer King, he could not entirely hear what Officer King was saying to Defendant. Id. at 53-54. Nonetheless, while Defendant was sitting in the driver's seat, Officer Felicien heard Officer King ask Defendant if he had a license for a firearm. Id. at 54. Officer Felicien then heard Officer King ask Defendant to exit the vehicle. Id. After Defendant exited, the officers patted down Defendant then placed him under arrest. Id. Officer Felicien testified that Officer King handcuffed Defendant. Id. at 54-55.

According to Defendant, after he explained to Officer King that he didn't have his driver's license and showed Officer King the paperwork that he did have, another officer-Officer Modeste-approached from the rear of the passenger side. Id. at 72-73. When Officer Modeste reached the front passenger window, he shined his flashlight into the vehicle and asked Defendant if Defendant had anything illegal in the car. Id. at 73. Defendant responded that he did not. Id. at 74. Officer Modeste then repeated his question two more times, and both times Defendant responded that nothing illegal was in the car.^[3] Id. Officer Modeste then asked Defendant to step out of the car. Id. After Defendant complied with the request, Officer Modeste searched the vehicle. Id. When Officer Modeste found the firearm, Officer Felicien handcuffed Defendant and the officers placed Defendant in the back of the police vehicle. Id. at 74-75.

Officer King testified that Officer Modeste was not present on the scene until after Defendant admitted that he did not have a license to possess the firearm. Id. at 96-97. Officer Felicien similarly testified that he and Officer King were the only officers on the scene until after Defendant's arrest. Id. at 62.

Outside of this sequence of events, the testimonies of the three witnesses largely aligned. The entirety of the traffic stop-from the time of the initial stop until the time Defendant was transported from the scene-lasted around 30 minutes to an hour. Id. at 47, 63, 76. Defendant was not advised of his Miranda rights until he arrived at the police station. Id. at 39, 63, 78-79. When Defendant was asked if he had a license for his firearm, he was not handcuffed. Id. at 18-19, 91. Further, throughout the entirety of the traffic stop, no police officer brandished their firearm at Defendant. Id. at 18, 64, 91.

Defendant offers three arguments in favor of suppression. First, Defendant argues that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. (Dkt. No. 32 at 9-12). Second, even if the initial stop was lawful, Defendant maintains that police officers unlawfully extended the traffic stop. Id. at 13-19. Third, Defendant argues that his statements during the traffic stop were taken unlawfully. Id. at 19-20. In response, the Government argues that the initial traffic stop, the extension of the traffic stop, and the manner in which the VIPD Officers gathered Defendant's statements were all constitutionally permissible. (Dkt. No. 19 at 2-5; Dkt. No. 31 at 2-3).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Initial Traffic Stop

1. Applicable Legal Principles

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const amend. IV. “Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable and are therefore prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless an exception applies.” United States v. Mundy, 621 F.3d 283, 287 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991)); see also Couden v. Duffy, 446 F.3d 483, 494 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Generally, a seizure is...