United States v. Robertson

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. TERRY ROBERTSON, DARRYL FERGUSON, JANICE MOORE, Defendants.

Criminal No. 18-264

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

June 29, 2020

Judge Nora Barry Fischer

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

In this case, Defendants Terry Robertson, Darryl Ferguson and Janice Moore are charged in a multi-count indictment with several offenses arising from a traffic stop conducted by Pennsylvania State Trooper Dan Beatty on November 2, 2016, when he pulled over a rental vehicle operated by Robertson (with Moore and Ferguson as passengers) on the southbound Route 28 ramp to the Highland Park Bridge. All of the Defendants are charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, (Count One) and one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(ii), (Count Two). (Docket No. 3). Ferguson and Moore are both charged with one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(A)(i) (Count Three). (Id.). Moore is also charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(D), (Count Four). (Id.).

Presently before the Court are motions to suppress evidence on behalf of all of the Defendants and the Government's opposition thereto. (Docket Nos. 104; 110; 135). The Court held a suppression hearing on February 5, 2020, the official transcript of which was filed on March 13, 2020. (Docket Nos. 136; 138). The Government, Robertson, Ferguson and Moore each filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on different dates between March 25, 2020 and May 4, 2020, as the Court granted several extensions of time for Ferguson and Moore to make their respective filings. (Docket Nos. 139 (Government); 140 (Robertson); 145 (Ferguson); and 148 (Moore)). The parties declined to submit any responses by the Court's deadline of May 27, 2020, at which time the Court took the matter under advisement. (Docket No. 147). After careful consideration of the parties' filings and the credible evidence of record, and for the following reasons, Defendants' Motions to Suppress [104], [110] are denied.

II. BACKGROUND

At the hearing, the Government presented the testimony of Trooper Beatty and introduced three exhibits, including an Avis Rental Agreement; a Bench Warrant as to Robertson; and the Dash Camera Video of the incident. (Docket No. 136-1; Govt. Exs. 1-3). The Defendants did not call any witnesses but provided the Court with certain materials from the underlying state court proceedings including a motion to suppress filed by Robertson and a transcript of a bench ruling by the Hon. Anthony Mariani of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. (See Docket No. 104 at attachments). They also cross-examined Trooper Beatty. (Docket No. 138 at 65-79, 90). In this Court's opinion, Trooper Beatty offered credible testimony concerning the events in question, despite efforts to impeach him. See United States v. Garcia, 521 F. App'x 71, 73 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985)) ("'[w]hen findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses ... for only the trial judge can beaware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding of and belief in what is said.'"). He also presented as an experienced law enforcement officer.

In this regard, Trooper Beatty is a college graduate who earned bachelor's degrees in civil engineering and mathematics from the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown and practiced civil engineering for approximately five (5) years prior to joining the Pennsylvania State Police Force in 2012. (Docket No. 138 at 83-84). At the time of the events in question, on November 2, 2016, Trooper Beatty was working highway patrol but as of the date of the February 5, 2020 hearing, he had moved on to an assignment with the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Criminal Investigations, Southwest Strike Force Unit. (Id. at 16-17). Trooper Beatty explained to the Court his significant experience in conducting traffic stops and working drug cases as well as specific trainings he had attended concerning impaired drivers and identification of narcotics. (Id. at 17-19). Most pertinent here, he detailed his extensive trainings for investigations of marijuana crimes focusing on the location and identification of the smell of both burnt and raw marijuana and advised that he had investigated approximately 150-200 cases involving marijuana prior to encountering the Defendants in this case. (Id. at 19-20). He also had conducted approximately 7,000 to 8,000 traffic stops and demonstrated a keen understanding of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. (Id. at 20).

Returning to the events of November 2, 2016, Trooper Beatty was conducting a routine traffic patrol of Route 28 in full uniform and a marked state police vehicle observing traffic heading southbound toward the City of Pittsburgh from the Harmar onramp. (Docket No. 138 at 21). He was well familiar with the area as he grew up near there and had worked that patrol in thepast. (Id. at 20). He explained that portion of Route 28 as "high-traffic"; "high-traffic violation"; and "high-traffic accident" due to the poor design of the highway system and the heavy traffic going into the City. (Id. 20-21). From this position, Trooper Beatty observed a white Mazda drive past and abruptly apply its brakes, causing the nose of the car to dive to the ground when the car should have been accelerating to merge into traffic. (Id. at 21-22). He also saw that the female passenger in the front seat looked directly at him, while the others in the car stared straight ahead. (Id. at 22). Trooper Beatty believed that the Mazda and its occupants acted in this manner because they were concerned by the presence of a police vehicle. (Id. at 22-23).

Trooper Beatty recognized that it was a rental vehicle and had a Florida license plate. (Docket No. 138 at 23-24). From his training and experience, Trooper Beatty knew that individuals engaged in criminal activity used rental vehicles and that Florida was a source state for narcotics. (Id. at 24). Trooper Beatty decided to enter the highway to further investigate the vehicle. (Id.). He did not activate his lights or sirens at this time but pulled out into traffic to pursue the Mazda from a distance. As he approached the Mazda, which continued to drive south on Route 28, Trooper Beatty pulled up alongside the Mazda and observed that none of the occupants looked at him and it appeared than none of them were even talking to each other. (Id. at 25).

Trooper Beatty pulled off the highway to run the vehicle's registration but was unable to get the information at that time. (Docket No. 138 at 26). He then reentered the highway and activated his dash camera video, without turning on his lights or sirens. (Id. at 26-27). Trooper Beatty can also be heard narrating his observations on the microphone attached to his uniform. (Govt. Ex. 3). As he caught up to the Mazda, he observed that the vehicle was driving too closelyto the car it was following and also changed lanes while driving too closely, both of which are violations of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. (Id. at 28-32). At the hearing, he explained that the vehicle should have been at least 5 car lengths apart under his training which involved computing 1 car length for each 10 miles per hour the cars were travelling which in this instance was approximately 53 miles per hour and at least 4 car lengths apart under PennDOT standards. (Id.). He also commented that this activity took place at a dangerous point on southbound Route 28 as there is no median and the left lane becomes the exit ramp to the Highland Park Bridge causing cars accelerating in the left lane to have to change lanes abruptly in order to continue traveling toward the City. (Id. at 30-31). Having observed the Mazda violate the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, Trooper Beatty initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle by activating his overhead lights. (Id. at 32).

The Mazda continued on the Highland Park Bridge ramp and pulled over after driving past a broken-down vehicle. (Docket No. 138 at 32). The dash camera video continued to roll as Trooper Beatty stopped and exited his police cruiser. (Govt. Ex. 3). He approached the passenger side of the vehicle. (Docket No. 138 at 33-34). He could see that the windows were rolled down and smell a freshly lit cigarillo. (Id. at 34-35, 73-74). Trooper Beatty knew from his experience and training that individuals would often light a cigar or cigarette to mask other odors emanating from vehicles including narcotics. (Id. at 35-36). The female passenger complied and put out the cigarillo. (Id. at 36). Trooper Beatty introduced himself and had a conversation with the occupants about why he pulled them over and requested their licenses and the registration of the vehicle. (Id.). From his position near the passenger side window and now that the cigarillo was extinguished, Trooper Beatty explained that he smelled both burnt and raw marijuanawhich he could identify from his training and experience. (Id. at 36-37, 42). In response to the Trooper's requests, the driver, Robertson, produced his driver's license and the rental agreement for the car, which showed that the agreement had expired on October 25, 2016 or more than a week prior to the stop and that the vehicle had been rented near the airport. (Id. at 37; Gov. Ex. 1). The female passenger, Moore, produced a Pennsylvania identification card rather than a driver's license and the backseat passenger, Ferguson, produced a Georgia driver's license after removing it from his sock. (Id. at 37-38...