United States v. Smith

676 F.Supp.3d 1075

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Joel Richard SMITH and Amanda Irene Smith, Defendants.

Case No. 21-CR-00553-GKF

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

Signed June 7, 2023

Chantelle Dial, Melody Noble Nelson, Government Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, Tulsa, OK, Stephanie Noel Ihler, Government Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff.

Carla ReNae Stinnett, Stinnet Law, Sapulpa, OK, for Defendant Joel Richard Smith.

Alexis Gardner, Jared Guemmer, Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender's Office, Tulsa, OK, Robert D. Gifford, II, Gifford Law, PLLC, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant Amanda Irene Smith.

OPINION AND ORDER

Gregory K. Frizzell, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the court on the Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 61] of defendant Amanda Irene Smith, which defendant Joel Richard Smith has joined [Doc. 145], and the Motion to Suppress Illegally Obtained Evidence [Doc. 122] of Mr. Smith, in which Mrs. Smith has joined [Doc. 145]. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.

Background/Procedural History

On April 18, 2019, Mr. and Mrs. Smith were charged with child neglect and child abuse in the District Court in and for Mayes County, State of Oklahoma. A preliminary hearing was held in the state court on October 7 and 10, 2019. On June 16, 2021, the state-court charges against the Smiths were dismissed based upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, — U.S. —, 140 S. Ct. 2452, 207 L.Ed.2d 985 (2020).

On December 20, 2021, a federal grand jury returned an Indictment charging Mr. Smith with one count of Child Abuse in Indian Country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1153, and 2 and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(A) and one count of Child Neglect in Indian Country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1153, and 2 and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(C). The Indictment also charged Mrs. Smith with one count of Child Abuse in Indian Country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, 13, and 2 and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(A) and one count of Child Neglect in Indian Country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, 13, and 2 and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(C). [Doc. 2].

On July 18, 2022, a grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Smith with one count of Child Abuse in Indian Country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1153, and 2 and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(A) and one count of Child Neglect in Indian Country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1153, and 2 and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(C). The Superseding Indictment also charges Mrs. Smith with one count of Child Abuse in Indian Country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, 13, and 2 and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(A) and one count of Child Neglect in Indian Country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, 13, and 2 and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(C). [Doc. 85]. The charges relate to alleged victim H.M., a child under the age of eighteen.¹ Trial of this matter is scheduled to begin on June 20, 2023. [Doc. 128].

In advance of trial, Mrs. Smith filed a motion seeking to suppress evidence obtained during three separate entries into the residence that Mrs. Smith jointly occupied with Mr. Smith, that occurred on April 5, 2019. [Doc. 61]. Mrs. Smith also seeks to suppress "any later-obtained evidence tainted by the search." [Id. at p. 1]. Additionally, Mr. Smith filed a separate motion seeking to suppress evidence obtained during two of the three April 5, 2019 entries into the Smith residence, as well as a subsequent search conducted pursuant to a warrant on April 17, 2019. [Doc. 122]. Mr. Smith also asks that law enforcement, or any other witness, be prohibited from testifying about the retrieval or existence of any evidence obtained. [Id. at p. 7]. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have joined the other's respective motion. [Doc. 145]. The government separately responded in opposition to each motion. [Doc. 132; Doc. 137]. Thus, the motions are ripe for the court's determination.

Neither the Smiths nor the government has requested an evidentiary hearing. [Doc. 61; Doc. 122; Doc. 132; Doc. 137]. In his motion, Mr. Smith states he "believes the Court can decide the matter on the pleadings." [Doc. 122, p. 7]. The government concurs in response. [Doc. 137, p. 11]. Having reviewed the briefs and evidence in this matter, and in light of the fact that a hearing has not been requested, the court concludes that the motions may be decided on the briefs and a hearing is unnecessary.

Relevant Facts

On April 5, 2019, Mayes County Sheriff's Deputy Brittney Burnett was dispatched to a residential address on South 4450 Road, Mayes County, Oklahoma in reference to a missing child. [Doc. 132-1, p. 14; Doc. 132-3, p. 97]. While en route to the call, Deputy Burnett received a second call from a different reporting party, Jennifer Puckett, who advised that a nine-year-old female had walked up to Ms. Puckett's residence, located on East 540 Road, Mayes County, Oklahoma. The minor female stated that she was hungry and that her parents did not take care of her. [Doc. 132-1, p. 15; Doc. 132-3, pp. 77 and 97]. The age and description of the child matched the original call and was in close proximity to the original address. [Doc. 132-1, p. 15; Doc. 132-3, p. 97]. Deputy Burnett advised that she would be en route to the second address to check on the welfare of the child. [Doc. 132-1, p. 15].

Upon arrival at the East 540 Road address, Deputy Burnett spoke with Ms. Puckett. [Doc. 132-1, p. 15; Doc. 132-3, p. 98]. After speaking with Ms. Puckett, Deputy Burnett went inside the Puckett residence and spoke with H.M.² Deputy Burnett observed that H.M. smelled of urine and feces, appeared unwashed, and had red patches of skin covering her forearms. [Doc. 132-1, p. 15; Doc. 132-3, pp. 98-99]. Deputy Burnett asked H.M. if she needed help getting home. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16; Doc. 132-3, p. 99]. Deputy Burnett reported that H.M. became almost fearful, began to cry, and stated that she did not want to go home. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16; Doc. 132-3, pp. 99-100].

Deputy Burnett then stepped outside of the residence to call the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16]. While Deputy Burnett was on the phone with DHS, Deputy Corbin Peters arrived, entered the Puckett residence, and made contact with H.M. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16; Doc. 132-3, p. 101].

After Deputy Burnett's call, Deputy Burnett and Deputy Peters made contact with H.M. together. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16; Doc. 132-3, p. 101]. Deputy Peters asked H.M. about injuries and H.M. pulled her right pant leg up. The deputies observed a laceration encircling H.M.'s ankle that appeared to be infected. H.M. was asked what caused the injury and she stated handcuffs. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16; Doc. 132-3, pp. 101-02]. H.M. later described the handcuffs as silver and metal like the ones used by law enforcement. H.M. stated that the handcuffs were kept on a dresser in her parents' bedroom. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16; Doc. 132-3, p. 103]. Deputy Peters radioed dispatch to contact the Mayes Emergency Services Trust Authority (METSA) to send paramedics. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16; Doc. 132-3, pp. 102-03].

Deputy Burnett and Deputy Peters then left the Puckett residence and traveled to the 4450 Road address, where the Smiths resided. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16; Doc. 132-3, p. 103]. The Smiths were standing outside of the residence when the deputies arrived. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16; Doc. 132-3, p. 104]. Deputy Burnett did not see any indication that either of the Smiths were intoxicated. [Doc. 132-3, p. 105].

At the time she arrived at the house, Deputy Burnett was wearing the Class A uniform which includes a polo shirt with an internal vest and a badge on the chest. [Doc. 132-3, p. 105]. Deputy Burnett was also wearing a firearm and handcuffs. [Doc. 132-3, pp. 105-06].

Deputy Burnett advised the Smiths that H.M. had been found, that DHS had been contacted, and that METSA was en route to check H.M. out. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16; Doc. 132-3, p. 106]. Deputy Burnett further advised that H.M. was in a safe location and would remain there until further notice. [Doc. 132-1, p. 16]. Deputy Burnett then had to step away to take a phone call, but Deputy Peters continued to speak with both Mr. and Mrs. Smith. [Doc. 132-1, pp. 16-17 and 20].

Deputy Burnett subsequently returned and asked Mrs. Smith if she and Deputy Peters could conduct a cursory safety check of the residence to assess the living conditions. [Doc. 132-1, pp. 17 and 20; Doc. 132-3, p. 110]. Mrs. Smith responded that the house was dirty. [Doc. 132-1, p. 17]. Deputy Burnett informed Mrs. Smith that, before H.M. could be released to her custody, a check would have to be completed, but that they could wait until the DHS investigator arrived to do so. [Doc. 132-1, p. 17; Doc. 132-3, p. 110]. Mrs. Smith advised that the deputies could enter the residence at that time and escorted them inside. [Doc. 132-1, pp. 17 and 20; Doc. 132-3, pp. 110-11]. Mr. Smith followed the deputies and Mrs. Smith inside. [Doc. 132-1, p. 17; Doc. 132-3, p. 111].

Once in the home, Deputy Peters asked Mrs. Smith the location of H.M.'s room. [Doc. 132-1, p. 20]. Mrs. Smith escorted the deputies down the hall to a bedroom on the left and opened the door. [Doc. 132-1, pp. 17 and 20; Doc. 132-3, p. 113]. The deputies observed a pack and play with holes cut in the mesh. [Doc. 132-1, pp. 17 and 20].

After exiting the room, Deputy Burnett asked Mrs. Smith about the room directly across from H.M.'s room. Mrs. Smith explained it was the junk room. Deputy Burnett asked if she could look inside and Mrs. Smith advised that she could. [Doc. 132-1, p. 17; Doc. 132-3, p. 113]. After looking in the junk room, Deputy Burnett asked Mrs. Smith what the next room was. Mrs. Smith responded it was her and Mr. Smith's bedroom. Deputy Burnett asked if she could look in the room, and Mrs. Smith advised yes. [Doc. 132-1, p. 17; Doc. 132-3, p. 113]. While in the Smiths' bedroom, the deputies observed a pair of metal...