United States v. Preston

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. JUSTIN DEQUIZE PRESTON DEFENDANT

No. 4:19-cr-672-KGB

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Central Division

April 12, 2023

ORDER

Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge

Before the Court is defendant Justin Preston's motion to reconsider the Court's prior denial of his motions to suppress (Dkt. No. 110). The government filed a written response (Dkt. No. 120). The Court held a hearing on March 27, 2023, and the parties filed post-hearing briefs (Dkt Nos. 132; 133). Mr. Preston also filed a motion to supplement the record, to which the government does not object (Dkt. No 131). The Court grants the motion to supplement (Dkt. No 131). For the following reasons, the Court denies Mr. Preston's motion to reconsider (Dkt. No. 110).

I. Background

A. Procedural History

This case was initially assigned to the docket of the Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr. While the case was on Judge Marshall's docket, Mr. Preston filed motions to suppress evidence based on the traffic stop, the search of his vehicle, and questioning by law enforcement officers (Dkt. Nos. 76-78). Mr. Preston also moved for a separate trial on count four of the Indictment, which charges Mr. Preston with being a felon in possession of a firearm (Dkt. No. 79). Judge Marshall entered an Order setting a hearing on the vehicle search but denying Mr. Preston's other motions (Dkt. No. 93). After the government filed supplemental briefing on the vehicle search (Dkt. No. 95), to which Mr. Preston did not respond, Judge Marshall canceled the suppression hearing and denied Mr. Preston's remaining motion to suppress (Dkt. No. 100).

Mr. Preston filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motions (Dkt. No. 110). Judge Marshall granted Mr. Preston's embedded request for a hearing and scheduled a hearing on March 27, 2023 (Dkt. No. 116). Judge Marshall later transferred the case to the docket of the undersigned based on availability to conduct the hearing (Dkt. No. 121).

B. Factual Background

This Court, when considering the pending motion to reconsider and underlying motions to suppress, reviewed the video, testimony, and other evidence provided at the suppression hearing. The Court also considered the supplements to the record requested by Mr. Preston. Based on the Court's review of the video, testimony, and other evidence, the Court recites this factual background.

At approximately 9:40 p.m. on November 23, 2019, Detective Jeremy Crosby and Officer Christopher Sweeney with the Pine Bluff Police Department (“PBPD”) were driving south on Camden Road in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. They saw a white Dodge Charger move from the left lane into the right lane and almost immediately make a right-hand turn. Detective Crosby activated his blue lights, and the Charger fled. Arkansas State Police (“ASP”) Trooper Shane Caviness, who was in a separate vehicle following close behind, captured the sequence on his dashcam.

The Charger led the PBPD and Trooper Caviness on a chase through a residential neighborhood at speeds exceeding 80 miles an hour. The chase ended when the Charger wrecked on private property, and Trooper Caviness's car crashed into it. As law enforcement officers converged on the vehicle, Trooper Caviness saw the driver, Justin Preston, slump over in his seat and appear to grab or stash something. Trooper Caviness told Mr. Preston to show his hands, and Mr. Preston exited the vehicle backward, leading with his backside. Mr. Preston initially only raised his left hand, though he quickly put both hands in the air. Mr. Preston left the driver's door open after exiting the vehicle. Trooper Caviness ordered Mr. Preston to get on the ground, and Mr. Preston eventually laid down near the rear of the Charger on the driver's side.

Multiple law enforcement officers surrounded the Charger including Officer Sweeney, who can be seen in the dashcam video wearing a Dallas Cowboys hat and holding a flashlight. The officers removed three passengers from the Charger while Trooper Caviness was securing Mr. Preston. Officer Sweeney looked inside the vehicle and saw an extended ammunition magazine, which was attached to a pistol, sticking out from under the driver's seat. When Officer Sweeney found the gun, Mr. Preston was laying on the ground on the driver's side at the rear of the Charger, but one of the passengers was standing next to Officer Sweeney on the driver's side of the car. Officer Sweeney testified that he first saw the magazine through the open door when he was still outside the vehicle; he did not have to stick his head inside the car to see it. Officer Sweeney took a picture of what he saw under the seat (Gov. Ex. 2). Officer Sweeney also took pictures of a purse sitting on the center console in the front of the car and a fanny pack on the driver's seat (Gov. Ex. 7-9). The fanny pack is unzipped, and a green, leafy substance can be seen inside it (Gov. Ex. 8). Officer Sweeney testified that he saw the green, leafy substance before sticking his head into the car.

Trooper Nick Burleson of the ASP was responsible for having the Charger towed from the private property and completing all related documents. Trooper Burleson did not conduct an inventory search on the Charger. He testified that he typically would have completed an inventory search. However, there were multiple agencies involved in responding to the scene, and his understanding was that the inventory search would be completed by another agency.

An officer with the PBPD transported Mr. Preston to ASP headquarters in Pine Bluff. At approximately 11:30 p.m., about two hours after Mr. Preston's arrest, Special Agent Stephen Briggs of the ASP and Special Agent Tyler Cowart of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives interviewed Mr. Preston. Special Agent Briggs and Special Agent Cowart were not involved in the chase or search of the Charger. Special Agent Briggs and Special Agent Cowart only responded to the scene after Officer Sweeney discovered the gun and drugs, and both testified that they did not interact with Mr. Preston at the scene.

Special Agent Briggs and Special Agent Cowart did not ask Mr. Preston any questions before beginning their recorded interview.^[1]At the outset of the interview, Special Agent Briggs read Mr. Preston his Miranda rights. Mr. Preston waived his rights and answered their questions.

II. Argument

Mr. Preston argues that the initial stop and the subsequent vehicle search violated his Fourth Amendment rights and moves to suppress the evidence against him. Mr. Preston also argues that any statements he made after receiving his Miranda warnings were not knowingly and voluntarily given, meaning they should be suppressed. He also renews his request for a separate trial on count four of the Indictment. The Court addresses each argument in turn.

A. Initial Stop

Mr. Preston argues that the PBPD did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to pull him over, meaning all subsequently discovered evidence should be suppressed (Dkt. No. 81). However, Detective Crosby and Officer Sweeney testified that they saw Mr. Preston's car make a right-hand turn from the left, inside lane. Arkansas law provides that “[b]oth the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.” Ark. Code Ann. § 27-51-401(1).^[2] Detective Crosby and Officer Sweeney's testimony is consistent with-or, at the very least, not contradicted by-the footage captured from Trooper Caviness's dashcam (Gov. Ex. 1, at 00:30-00.40). The Court credits Detective Crosby and Officer Sweeney's testimony and finds that the PBPD had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that Mr. Preston committed a traffic violation. United States v. Stewart, 32 F.4th 691, 694 (8th Cir. 2022). The attempted traffic stop did not violate Mr. Preston's Fourth Amendment rights. United States v. Coleman, 700 F.3d 329, 334 (8th Cir. 2012). The Court denies Mr. Preston's motion to reconsider on this issue.

Mr. Preston's motion to suppress also fails because he was not seized when the officers attempted to pull him over. For the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a “seizure occurs ‘when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.'” United States v. Flores-Lagonas, 993 F.3d 550, 559 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16 (1968)). There is no seizure “unless the individual actually submits to the ‘show of authority.” Id. at 559-60 (quoting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 628 (1991)). Mr. Preston fled from the attempted stop. He was not seized until after he led officers on a high-speed chase through a residential neighborhood and wrecked his vehicle on private property. At that point, there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Preston for a variety of crimes, including felony fleeing. Considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had probable cause to believe Mr. Preston had committed a crime when they ultimately seized him after the car chase. Id. at 561.

B. Subsequent Search

Mr Preston next challenges Officer Sweeney's warrantless search of the Charger, which resulted in the discovery of the gun and drugs. The “cardinal principle” in Fourth Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence is that “‘searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment- subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.'” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390 (1978) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)); see United States v. Marshall, 986 F.2d 1171, 1173 (8th Cir. 1993) (quoting same)...