United States v. Schexnayder

538 F.Supp.3d 696

UNITED STATES of America

v.Michael Tremaine SCHEXNAYDER

Criminal Case 3:19-CR-623-L

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

Signed May 11, 2021

Gary C. Tromblay, Lindsey E. Beran, United States Attorney's Office, Dallas, TX, for United States of America.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Sam A. Lindsay, United States District Judge

Before the court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress ("Motion") (Doc. 68), filed January 12, 2021, which includes a request for an evidentiary hearing. The court necessarily granted Defendant's request for a hearing, over the Government's opposition, by scheduling and conducting an evidentiary hearing on May 6, 2021. After considering the Motion, the Government's response in opposition, applicable law, and the arguments and evidence presented by the parties during the evidentiary hearing, including documentary evidence and witness testimony, the court denies Defendant's Motion (Doc. 68) with respect to his request to suppress evidence that was seized on July 16, 2019, after his arrest; statements that were made by him immediately after he was taken into custody and arrested on July 16, 2019; and evidence regarding the photo lineup identification of him on October 4, 2019, by a witness to the armed robbery.

I. Defendant's Motion to Suppress

Michael Tremaine Schexnayder ("Defendant" or "Mr. Schexnayder"), who is proceeding pro se, moves to suppress evidence of unspecified materials removed from his pants pockets by police officers during his arrest on July 16, 2019, on the grounds that the arresting officers lacked probable cause for the search and seizure of "illegal[ly] obtained evidence" described in the affidavit of Special Agent Scott C. Satcher ("Agent Satcher"), and that the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, his right to due process, and his expectation of privacy in his pants pockets under Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Defendant asserts that "he was not running or hiding from police prior to arrest" and he "denies that assertion by [the] police." Def.’s Mot. 2. In addition, he contends that "proper Miranda warnings were not given to him by the police and proper waiver of those rights did not occur."¹ Id. (citing Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966)). Defendant requests that the court "suppress evidence according to the law" after conducting a hearing. Def.’s Mot. 3.

II. The Government's Response in Opposition to the Motion

The Government's response focuses on Defendant's contention that law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest him and search his person. In this regard, the Government contends that Defendant's "collection of conjectural and conclusory assertions" is insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing, and, regardless, the police had probable cause to arrest him and authority to search his person incident to his lawful arrest for armed robbery and vehicular flight:

At about 11:00 a.m. on July 16, 2019, Schexnayder—... wearing a blue shirt, blue shorts, blue shoes, and a white hat printed with marijuana leaves—entered the T-Mobile cellular telephone store located on South Carrier Parkway in Grand Prairie, Texas. He initially interacted with a store employee and pretended to be a T-Mobile customer, but he pulled out a concealed pistol and forced employees and customers into a backroom. He then took personal property from the victims and money and merchandise from the store at gunpoint. He also took the store manager's car keys and iPhone and fled the store in her car with his take.

...

The police responded to the armed robbery. Using the "Find My iPhone" feature on the store manager's stolen phone, the police located and tracked the stolen car travelling westbound on I-20 toward Fort Worth. The police intercepted the car and Schexnayder then led them on a high-speed chase that ended at a Fort Worth motel. Driving into the motel parking lot with police cars in hot pursuit, Schexnayder—still outfitted in his vivid robbery apparel—jumped out from behind the wheel of the moving car and fled on foot into a nearby wooded area. The unoccupied car containing evidence of the robbery—minus Schexnayder's pistol—stopped after crashing into a safety barrier.

The police quickly apprehended Schexnayder hiding near a shed. He was unarmed when arrested, but the police later found his loaded .40 caliber pistol hidden underneath a woodpile next to the shed. Unaware that the police had found the weapon, Schexnayder placed a recorded jail call to an acquaintance and gave specific directions where "The Big Child" could be retrieved, instructing that the gun was hidden under the woodpile by the shed.

Gov't Resp. 2-3.

The Government contends that these facts establish the needed probable cause for Defendant's arrest and provided the arresting police officers with authority to search his person without a warrant "because they caught him in flagrante delicto , that is, in blazing offense":

The police responded to the armed robbery and located Schexnayder in the store manager's car using her iPhone that he also took. The police intercepted Schexnayder driving the stolen car and attempted to stop him, but he engaged the police in a dangerous car-chase. He eventually jumped out the car and fled on foot wearing the very apparel that he wore during the robbery. The police then found him hiding nearby and arrested him. Because the police lawfully arrested Schexnayder for armed robbery and vehicular flight, the search of his person was proper. See, e.g., United States v. Campbell , 575 F.2d 505, 507 (5th Cir. 1978) ("[D]efendants were lawfully arrested. The search of Mosley's jacket and seizure of the incriminating piece of paper were clearly proper.").

Gov't Resp. 5. The Government, therefore, contends that the arrest and search were lawful, and Defendant's Motion to Suppress should be denied.

III. Discussion

As noted, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress on May 6, 2021. During this hearing, both parties were given the opportunity to present additional arguments and evidence in support of their respective positions. Grand Prairie Major Crimes Detective Zach Miles testified on behalf of the Government. The Government also played the police videos of law enforcement's pursuit and arrest of Defendant. Gov't Exs. 1-2. In response to a new argument raised by Defendant for the first time during the hearing, the Government, at Defendant's request, also presented the color version of the photo lineup administered by Agent Satcher and the admonition signed by T-Mobile store manager Ruby Garcia, who was a witness to the robbery. Based on the parties’ evidence and briefing, and the court's consideration of the legal standards that apply to the issues raised, it determines that Defendant's Motion to Suppress should be denied.

A. Search of Defendant's Pants Pockets and Seizure of Evidence

Warrantless searches "are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332, 338, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (quoting Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (footnote omitted)); United States v. Kelly , 302 F.3d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 2002) (explaining that, under the Fourth Amendment, "[w]arrantless searches and seizures are ‘per se unreasonable unless they fall within a few narrowly defined exceptions.’ ") (quoting United States v. Roberts , 274 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 2001) ). One exception "to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest." Gant , 556 U.S. at 338, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (citation omitted); United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 224, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). "[S]earches that are incident to lawful arrest are those of: the arrestee's person; any items or containers that were located on the arrestee's person at the time of the arrest; and any items or containers that were located within the arrestee's reaching distance at the time of the arrest." McCullough v. Wright , 824 F. App'x 281, 286 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Curtis , 635 F.3d 704, 711-12 (5th Cir. 2011) ). The search incident to arrest exception "derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations." Gant , 556 U.S. at 338, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (citations omitted). A search conducted incident to arrest is limited to "the arrestee's person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ " that includes "the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence." Gant , 556 U.S. 332 at 339, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (quoting Chimel v. California , 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) ).

It is well established that "law enforcement officials may arrest an individual in a public place without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the individual committed a felony." United States v. Garcia , 179 F.3d 265, 268 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Watson , 423 U.S. 411, 423-24, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) ). "Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the totality of facts and circumstances within a police officer's knowledge at the moment of arrest are sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense." United States v. Wadley , 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1995). "When considering what a ‘reasonable person’ would have concluded, [courts] take into account the expertise and experience of the law enforcement officials." Garcia , 179 F.3d at 268 (citing United States v. Ortiz , 422 U.S. 891, 897, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623 (1975) ).

Although "the burdens of production and persuasion generally rest upon the movant in a suppression hearing[,] ... if a defendant produces evidence that he was arrested or...