United States v. Qualls

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN TRINIDAD QUALLS, Defendant.

No. 23-cr-2021-CJW

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

August 7, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Mark A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 19, 2023, the Grand Jury returned an Indictment charging Defendant with one count of Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). (Doc. 16.)

The matter before me is Defendant's motion to suppress. (Doc 28.) The motion was filed June 20, 2023 and contained an inventory of items to be suppressed which includes: Defendant's statements to authorities, contents of his phone, controlled substances, and any other evidence obtained as a result of the search and interrogations of Defendant. (Doc. 28.) The Government timely filed a response on June 27, 2023. (Doc. 30.) The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Court Judge, referred the motion to me for a Report and Recommendation. I held a hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress on July 12, 2023. (Doc. 36.) At the hearing, counsel for the Government advised the Court she had just learned of the existence of a search warrant for Defendant's phone. (Id.) The hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress was reset for July 21, 2023. (Id.) On July 19, 2023, with leave of the Court, the Government filed a Supplemental Brief. (Doc. 40.) Defendant did not file any supplemental briefing.

The motion arises from law enforcement's stop and subsequent search of Defendant's vehicle. At the hearing, Government's Exhibit 1, dashboard camera footage from Deputy Dylan Isakson's patrol vehicle, was admitted without objection.

Defendant moves to suppress all evidence related to the search of his person, vehicle, and personal phone. (Doc. 28.) Evidence he seeks to suppress includes: methamphetamine seized from his vehicle during the traffic stop, admissions made by Defendant concerning his knowledge or possession of methamphetamine, and all statements made by Defendant during questioning at the Floyd County Jail. (Id.)

At the hearing, Defendant's Exhibit A, Deputy Dylan Isakson's body camera video, was also admitted without objection.

The Government called one witness: Deputy Dylan Isakson. I found the witness credible. For the following reasons, I respectfully recommend that the District Court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

At 2:54 a.m. on December 31, 2022, Floyd County Sheriff's Office Deputy Dylan Isakson^[1] pulled Defendant over for speeding. (Government Ex. 1, Isakson Dash-Camera Footage, at:30-36.)^[2] Deputy Isakson was positioned in the median near Rudd Park Road and Highway 18. His patrol car lights were off, and he was operating his radar detector from a stationary position. Defendant's vehicle approached Deputy Isakson's patrol car from the rear, traveling westbound. Deputy Isakson activated his radar unit and obtained a reading of Defendant's vehicle traveling 88 miles per hour in a 65 mile-per-hour zone.

(Id.; Isakson Hr'g Test. at 10.) Deputy Isakson turned on the lights of his patrol car, entered the roadway, caught up to Defendant, and initiated a traffic stop. (Isakson Hr'g Test. at 11.) Defendant's vehicle pulled over to the side of the road.

Deputy Isakson approached the vehicle from the passenger side and noted that Defendant was alone in the vehicle. (Id.) Deputy Isakson asked Defendant where he was traveling from, and Defendant replied that he was traveling from visiting his mother in Michigan. (Government Ex. 1 at 1:50.) When asked where he was driving to, Defendant replied that he was going to visit his sister in Clear Lake, Iowa. (Id.) Defendant was fully compliant and provided Deputy Isakson his Arizona driver's license and a pouch containing his vehicle registration and proof of insurance. (Id. at 2:15-2:50.) Deputy Isakson testified that Defendant's overly friendly manner and overly compliant behavior, combined with his apparent nervousness, raised suspicion. (Isakson Hr'g Test. at 14, 25-26.)

Deputy Isakson returned to his patrol vehicle to run Defendant's information and observed marijuana residue, or “shake,” when handling the pouch that contained Defendant's vehicle registration. (Defendant Ex. A at 2:15-5:11.) At the hearing, Deputy Isakson explained that once he was in his patrol car, he could smell the odor of marijuana emanating from the paperwork and observed marijuana residue or green leafy residue inside the pouch containing the vehicle registration. (Isakson Hr'g Test. at 13.) Deputy Isakson then returned to Defendant's vehicle to explain that he had probable cause to search the vehicle.^[3] (Defendant Ex. A at 5:50-6:15.) Deputy Isakson also asked Defendant a series of questions pertaining to marijuana. (Id. at 5:30.) Defendant stated there was not any marijuana in the vehicle. (Id. at 5:37.) Defendant was asked if marijuana was legal in Arizona, his state of residence, to which he replied “yes.” (Id. at 5:43.) Defendant stated that he was not under the influence while driving but admitted that he had legally smoked a “joint” of marijuana earlier that day while he was in Michigan. (Id. at 6:20-6:50.) At the hearing, Deputy Isakson also stated that when he re-approached Defendant's vehicle, he observed more marijuana residue near the shifter of the center console in Defendant's car. (Isakson Hr'g Test. 14.)

Deputy Isakson instructed Defendant to exit the vehicle and he performed a patdown of Defendant's person to detect any weapons and ensure his safety. (Id. at 7:00 7:10.) Deputy Isakson found a large quantity of cash in Defendant's pocket. (Id. at 8:30-8:50.) When asked how much cash was in his pocket, Defendant replied “probably 600 bucks.”^[4] (Id.) Deputy Isakson placed Defendant in the front seat of his patrol car. (Isakson Hr'g Test. at 15.) At this time, Defendant was not handcuffed. (Id.) At this point Defendant had access to his cell phone and may have used it while the search proceeded.

Deputy Isakson then began searching Defendant's vehicle while Defendant sat uncuffed in the patrol vehicle. Defendant appeared nervous and called Deputy Isakson back to the patrol vehicle several times. Deputy Isakson testified that he believed Defendant was attempting to divert his attention from the search and make the search go more quickly. (Id. at 16.) The search produced a vape pen in the driver's side door. Deputy Isakson could smell the odor of burnt THC on the vape pen. Deputy Isakson also found a large bag of methamphetamine under the front passenger seat. (Id. at 17.) After finding the first bag of methamphetamine, Deputy Isakson returned to the patrol car and had Defendant place his phone on the car's dash, as Defendant had been speaking to his mother, and then placed Defendant in handcuffs in front of his body.^[5] (Id. at 17-18.) Deputy Isakson returned to Defendant's vehicle to complete the search and found a second bag of methamphetamine on the front passenger's seat.^[6] (Id. at 18.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Parties' Arguments

Relying on United States v. Parks, 902 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2018), Defendant argues that Deputy Isakson did not have probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant because Deputy Isakson did not note the odor of marijuana when he initially approached the vehicle. (Doc. 29 at 6.) Defendant also points out that marijuana is legal in Michigan, where Defendant was traveling from, and in Arizona, Defendant's state of residence. Defendant contends that previous legal possession of marijuana does not imply that he illegally possessed marijuana at the time of the traffic stop. (Id. at 7.) Thus, Defendant concludes that “the evidence from the search should be suppressed because it was the result of a warrantless search that lacked probable cause.” (Id.)

Defendant also argues that the pre-Miranda statements he made after he was handcuffed as well as the statements he made to an Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement officer were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.

The Government argues that Deputy Isakson had probable cause to search Defendant's vehicle because there was an odor of marijuana and marijuana residue in the pouch containing Defendant's registration. Further, the Government points out that there was also marijuana residue inside Defendant's vehicle on the center console. (Doc. 301 at 4.)

The Government argues that the remainder of Defendant's motion is moot because it will not offer evidence that is the subject of Defendant's Motion to Suppress on the Fifth Amendment grounds asserted by Defendant. Specifically, the Government asserts that it will not introduce into evidence any of Defendant's statements to authorities after he was handcuffed by Deputy Isakson on December 31, 2022. (Id. at 5.) However, the Government relies on United States v. Baftiri, 263 F.3d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 2001) for the right to use suppressed evidence for impeachment purposes if Defendant chooses to testify at trial. (Id. at 5-6.)

In its post-hearing brief, the Government notes that the contents of the Defendant's phone were obtained by a search warrant after Defendant was handcuffed, but without reliance on any information obtained after Defendant was handcuffed. Therefore, the Government argues, the content of the phone need not be suppressed because of any alleged later constitutional violation. Moreover, the Government argues the warrant is supported by probable cause and/or a good faith reliance on the warrant. Defendant asserted at the hearing that the contents of the cell phone should be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” if the initial stop was improper.

B. Relevant Law

The Fourth...