United States v. Ruff

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERIC v. ERIK ADDISON, Defendant.

No. 2:23-CR-118

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

September 24, 2024

OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM ORDER ON PRETRIAL MOTIONS

J Nicholas Ranjan, United States District Judge

Before the Court are pretrial motions filed by Defendant Erik Addison. ECF 68; ECF 69; ECF 72; ECF 73; ECF 74; ECF 75; ECF 76; ECF 77. The Court issues this omnibus order resolving the motions.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A grand jury indicted Mr. Addison for four counts: (1) possession with intent to distribute; (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; (3) possession of a machinegun; and (4) possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. ECF 54. Counts One, Two, and Three arose from an incident that occurred on May 8, 2023, and Count Four arose from an incident that occurred on April 14, 2023. Id.

I. The May 8, 2023, incident (basis for Counts One, Two, and Three).^[1]

On Monday, May 8, 2023, a multi-agency task force met about initiating an investigation into individuals who were suspected in various shootings, including Mr. Addison. ECF 81-1, p. 16, ¶ 13. That same day, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police detectives spotted Mr. Addison and started surveilling him with other federal agents. Id. at 16-17 ¶¶ 14-15. Shortly after 8:00 p.m., the team observed Mr. Addison pull out of a parking lot in a gray Infiniti sedan. Id. at 17, ¶¶ 14, 16. Detectives initiated a traffic stop because Mr. Addison had no valid driver's license and his vehicle had a heavy window tint. Id. at 18, ¶ 17. The traffic stop escalated: Mr. Addison fled in his vehicle, and then on foot, and the chase culminated in one of the officers pinning Mr. Addison against the wall with his patrol car. Id. at 18-19, ¶¶ 18-23. As an agent was handcuffing Mr. Addison, the agent noticed a Glock pistol, wads of cash, and two Apple iPhones (one black and one white) next to Mr. Addison on the sidewalk. Id. at 19, ¶ 24. The Allegheny County Police obtained and executed a search warrant for Mr. Addison's vehicle. Id. at 21, ¶ 28. During the execution of the warrant, the officers retrieved a red Apple iPhone (which did not belong to Mr. Addison), a black Nike bag containing suspected heroin and/or fentanyl, a loaded Glock pistol magazine, and Mr. Addison's Pennsylvania Identification Card. Id.

Based on these events, the government sought and received two warrants for the examination of the two iPhones found next to Mr. Addison. See id. at 1-8. The warrants authorized the search and seizure of: “incoming and outgoing call, text and other chat application message logs, contact lists, photo and video galleries, sent and received text, video and audio messages/files, online searches and sites viewed via the internet, online or electronic communications sent and received, including email, chat, and instant messages, navigation, mapping, and GPS files, telephone settings, including speed dial numbers and the telephone number for TELEPHONES 1-3 and related identifying information such as the ESN for TELEPHONES 1-3, call forwarding information, messages drafted but not sent, and voice messages.” Id. at 3, 7.

II. The April 14, 2023, incident (basis for Count Four).

On April 14, 2023, a shooting occurred at Edgewood Towne Centre in Edgewood, Pennsylvania. ECF 81-14, p. 4, ¶ 13. At approximately 2:36 p.m., multiple shots were filed near the Dollar General in Edgewood Towne Centre. Id. at 5, ¶ 17. Multiple vehicles in the parking lot and the window of Dollar General were struck by gunfire; multiple vehicles fled while exchanging gunfire. Id. After the vehicles left Edgewood Towne Centre, a school bus driver was hit by gunfire, after which the bus driver noticed a dark-colored vehicle and a light-colored vehicle turn right on Hays Street. Id. at 5-6, ¶ 18. One of the vehicles was a gray Infiniti sedan. Id. at 7, ¶ 20. In surveillance footage, a black male is seen leaning out of the Infiniti's front passenger window. Id. at 9, ¶ 23. Law enforcement recovered nine 9mm casings from streets near Hays Street and five 9mm casings from the Edgewood Towne Centre parking lot. Id. at 9, ¶¶ 22, 24.

Law enforcement determined that the gray Infiniti sedan was registered to Mr. Addison based on video footage showing the license plate and that this vehicle was used in connection with both the April 14, 2023, incident and the May 8, 2023, incident. Id. at 10, 13-14, ¶¶ 26-27, 37. Through forensic testing, law enforcement also determined that the 9mm ammunition recovered from Edgewood Towne Centre and the surrounding area came from the Glock pistol recovered next to Mr. Addison on May 8, 2023. Id. at 13, ¶ 36. Evidence from the cell phones recovered from next to Mr. Addison on May 8, 2023, included a video of him with the Glock pistol inside the Infiniti, a picture of the Glock inside the Infiniti, and text messages stating that something had happened while he was driving the vehicle. Id. at 14-17, ¶¶ 39-40, 42, 44.

DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS

I. Motion to dismiss Count Four as “duplicitous” (ECF 68).

Count Four charges Mr. Addison with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Mr. Addison argues that this count must be dismissed as being multiplicitous of Counts Two and Three, as the same firearm is involved in all of those counts.^[2]After careful review, the Court disagrees.

“A multiplicitous indictment charges the same offense in two or more counts and may lead to multiple sentences for a single violation, a result prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause.” United States v. Pollen, 978 F.2d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 1992). “The basic inquiry in determining whether counts of an indictment are truly separate, and not multiplicitous, is whether proof of one offense charged requires an additional fact that proof of the other offense does not necessitate.” United States v. Carter, 576 F.2d 1061, 1064 (3d Cir. 1978). In determining whether an indictment is multiplicitous, “the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). Courts look to the offenses, not the underlying facts, when applying the Blockburger test. United States v.Towers, 98 Fed.Appx. 169, 171 (3d Cir. 2004).

Here, Mr. Addison is charged with: (1) possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(c) on May 8, 2023, at Count One; (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) on May 8, 2023, at Count Two; (3) possession of a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1) on May 8, 2023, at Count Three; and (4) possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) on April 14, 2023, at Count Four. ECF 54. Even though the same firearm is at issue in Counts Two, Three, and Four, there is no multiplicity concern because the counts all require proof of at least one separate element.

Under the Blockburger test, the three firearm counts all require proof of different elements. For Count Two, the government must prove that Mr. Addison: (1) committed a drug trafficking crime; (2) possessed a firearm in furtherance of that crime; and (3) the firearm was a machinegun. ECF 55, pp. 2-3. For Count Three, the government must prove that Mr. Addison: (1) possessed a firearm; (2) the firearm was a machinegun; (3) he possessed it knowingly; and (4) he knew that the characteristics of the firearm met the statutory definition of a machinegun. Id. at 3-4. For Count Four, the government must prove that Mr. Addison: (1) possessed a firearm; (2) was convicted of a felony at the time of the act; (3) knew that he had been convicted of a felony; and (4) possessed the firearm in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Id. at 4.

Count Four is not multiplicitous of Count Two, because Count Two requires proof of a drug trafficking crime, which Count Four does not. United States v.Lawrence, 928 F.2d 36, 38-39 (2d Cir. 1991) (consecutive sentences under Section 922(g)(1) and Section 924(c) permissible); United States v. Hunter, 887 F.2d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 1989) (charges under Section 924(c)(1) and Section 922(g)(1) were not multiplicitous because they required proof of different elements); Dempsey v. UnitedStates, No. 07-74, 2018 WL 4567113, at *3 (D. Del. Sept. 24, 2018) (applying Blockburger test and finding counts under Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(c) were not multiplicitous because they required the government to prove different elements).

And Count Three is not multiplicitous of Count Four because Count Four requires two additional elements-i.e., that Mr. Addison was a convicted felon and knew that fact-that Count Three does not. See United States v. Malachowski, 415 Fed.Appx. 307, 309 (2d Cir. 2011) (charges under Section 922(g)(5) and 922(o) not multiplicitous because they required proof of different elements); United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 397 (4th Cir. 2006) (charges under Sections 922(g) and 922(j) not multiplicitous because they required proof of different elements); United States v.Johnson, No. 07-50127, 2008 WL 2845639, at *1 (D.S.D. July 18, 2008) (same).

Mr. Addison relies heavily on two cases, United States v. Benjamin and United States v. Grant, in his principal and reply briefs. See ECF 68, pp. 5-7; ECF 85, pp. 45. But both cases are distinguishable.

In Benjamin, the defendant was charged with two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Section 922(g)(1). United States v.Benjamin, 711 F.3d 371, 375 (3d Cir. 2013). The Third Circuit adopted the view that Section 922(g)(...