United States v. Payton

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN MARQUIST PAYTON, Defendant.

No. 23-cr-192 (KMM/DLM)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

March 29, 2024

ORDER

Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge

In a one-count Indictment, the government alleges that on or about March 6, 2023, Jonathan Payton, having previously been convicted of one or more felonies, possessed ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). Indict., Doc. 1. Mr. Payton filed a motion to suppress evidence, including the ammunition identified in the Indictment, that was obtained during a search of his vehicle. Mot., Doc. 27. Following an evidentiary hearing,^[1] United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended that Mr Payton's motion be denied. R&R, Doc. 62. Mr. Payton filed timely objections to the R&R, Objections, Doc. 65 and the suppression issue is now before the Court for a decision.

When a magistrate judge conducts an evidentiary hearing and submits an R&R with proposed findings and a recommended disposition on a motion to suppress evidence, the district court conducts a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). When conducting such a review following the magistrate judge's evidentiary hearing, the district court must review the evidence admitted at that hearing, including any transcript of the testimony of witnesses and any video or audio recordings. See United States v. Azure, 539 F.3d 904, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008); Jones v. Pillow, 47 F.3d 251, 252 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Benitez, 244 Fed.Appx. 64, 66 (8th Cir. 2007). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify” the R&R, in whole or in part, or take other appropriate actions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having conducted the required de novo review, the Court overrules Mr. Payton's objections, accepts the R&R, and denies the motion to suppress.

I. Background^[2]

On March 6, 2023, while he was out on patrol, Winona County Sheriff's Deputy Derek Heyer responded to a report from dispatch that a pickup truck was stolen by a person with a handgun. Deputy Heyer eventually located the stolen vehicle and engaged in a highspeed pursuit. Eventually, the stolen vehicle was stopped using “stop sticks,” and the driver, Mr. Payton, was arrested and taken to jail.

Because Deputy Heyer believed Mr. Payton was exhibiting signs of intoxication, Deputy Heyer conducted a chemical test for alcohol. Those tests came back negative, but Deputy Heyer suspected that Mr. Payton may have been using drugs. Deputy Heyer asked Mr. Payton if he had taken any drugs, and Mr. Payton admitted he took methamphetamine during the pursuit. No firearm or ammunition was recovered from the stolen truck.

Winona County Sheriff's Sergeant Mark Dungy also heard the dispatch report and eventually arrived at the scene where the stolen vehicle was stopped. He instructed Winona County Sheriff's Deputy John Hazelton to go the scene of the vehicle robbery. That location, near a residence off Bear Creek Drive, was about fifteen miles away.

When Deputy Hazelton arrived at the scene of the robbery, there was a Ford Edge vehicle in the snow on the side of the road, and there were two witnesses nearby, AG and NB. Deputy Hazelton interviewed them, and they explained that the nearby residence belonged to AG's family. When AG and NB arrived at the residence earlier that day, they saw a person (Mr. Payton) walking around close to the home and approached him to find out why he was there. Mr. Payton told them that his vehicle had gotten stuck in the snow on the side of the gravel road. AG and NB asked him if he needed help getting the vehicle pulled out, and Mr. Payton said that he did. NB told Deputy Hazelton that as he was adjusting a trailer on a pickup truck so that it could be moved into position to pull the Ford Edge out of the snow, he saw Mr. Payton getting closer to the truck. NB tried to run to get into the truck, but before he could get there, Mr. Payton jumped in the truck's driver's seat. NB said he arrived at the open driver's side door right after Mr. Payton jumped inside, and Mr. Payton pulled a firearm and pointed it at NB's chest. NB grabbed the firearm and took it away from Mr. Payton. Mr. Payton immediately sped away in AG's truck. See Ex. 1, Hazelton Bodycam Video.

Deputy Hazelton recovered the firearm from the scene of the robbery, but he did not recover any ammunition. The firearm was unloaded and there was no magazine. At the hearing, Deputy Hazelton testified about why he thought ammunition for the firearm might be in the Ford Edge that was nearby:

Q. Okay. But [NB] didn't turn over any fire -- or any ammunition to you or anything like that.

A. That's correct.

Q. And you also have personal experience with firearms outside of your professional job as a law enforcement officer?

A. Yes, sir. ....

Q. So you're at a crime scene where you've got a firearm that was used in a crime but the firearm was unloaded.

It is fairly uncommon, is it not, when you have a firearm without having ammunition at least somewhere close by?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Such as maybe in the guy's vehicle?

A. Yes.

Tr. 69:13-70:14.

Deputy Hazelton informed Sergeant Dungy that he had recovered the firearm. Sergeant Dungy asked Deputy Hazelton to have the Ford Edge, which was registered to Mr. Payton, towed to the Winona County Sheriff's Office impound lot so that a search warrant could be obtained for the vehicle.

Sergeant Dungy asked Winona County Sheriff's Office Investigator Leslie Ladewig to prepare the search warrant. Investigator Ladewig was provided with information about the events of the day to include in the affidavit supporting the request for the search warrant. The affidavit of probable cause for the warrant states as follows:

On 03/06/23, dispatch gave out a call that a person with a firearm had taken a motor vehicle from another person in the area of Altura, Mn [within] Winona County. Deputies responded and located the stolen vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed on Highway 248 near Rollingstone, MN which is in Winona County. The stolen vehicle fled from law enforcement before eventually striking stop sticks causing three of the vehicle's tires to deflate. The vehicle stopped in the southbound lane of Highway 61 near the turn lane for Highway 14W. Jonathan Marquist Payton, date of birth XX/XX/85, was arrested on scene and no one else was located in the vehicle. A deputy recovered a firearm on scene where the truck was stolen. A Ford Edge registering to Payton, the suspect, was also recovered near the scene of crime, where the victim's vehicle was stolen. Payton's vehicle was towed from the crime scene to Winona County Sheriff's Office for processing. Payton has a past history of thefts/burglaries in Winona County. Payton has prior convictions for violent crimes in Olmsted County. Payton is a felon and is unable to possess any ammunition or firearms. While in custody at Winona County Jail, Payton admitted to swallowing some controlled substances.

I reviewed Payton's Criminal History and noted guilty pleas for violation of 624.713.1(2) Certain Person Not to Possess Firearm on 07/17/2013, Felony Stalking on 04/23/19, First Degree Burglary on 08/17 /22.

Doc. 33-1. The application for the search warrant sought (1) weapons or ammunition; (2) any electronic devices capable of storing data, including historical GPS location data; (3) any controlled substances; (4) any documents showing ownership of the vehicle; and (5) any property that may be stolen or unrelated to the owner of the vehicle. Id. at 1. A Winona County District Judge issued the warrant on the afternoon of March 6, 2023. Investigator Ladewig searched the vehicle on the morning of March 7, 2023, and recovered a magazine containing ammunition. Id. at 8. The magazine and ammunition were discovered lodged inside the mechanical area behind the dashboard after officers dismantled the dashboard paneling. Id.; see also Doc. 60 at 3 and Doc. 39 at 3.

Mr. Payton argued that the evidence seized from the Ford Edge should be suppressed because the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He asserted that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause and that no exception to the warrant requirement justified the search. In the R&R, Judge Micko determined that suppression of the evidence was not required. First, Judge Micko expressed “serious reservations about whether the warrant here was supported by probable cause” because the face of the warrant failed to establish a nexus between criminal activity and the place to be searched. However, he determined that even if the warrant application failed to establish probable cause, the evidence should not be suppressed based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule set forth in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). R&R at 6-11. Next, Judge Micko concluded that the search of Mr. Payton's vehicle was justified even in the absence of a warrant because the evidence in the record demonstrated that there was probable cause to search Mr. Payton's vehicle pursuant to the so-called “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement.” R&R at 13-16.^[3]

II. Discussion

Mr. Payton objects to the R&R on grounds that it misapplies the automobile exception and the Leon good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Having reviewed the objections and conducted the required de novo review, the Court disagrees with both arguments.

A. Automobile Exception

First Mr. Payton argues that the R&R erred in applying the automobile exception under the circumstances because “no exigency was present and [h...