United States v. Smith

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FRANK SMITH, WARREN GRIFFIN, ANTHONY DOBBINS, SEAN CLEMON, DOMINIQUE MAXWELL, PERRY HARRIS, and BARRY BOYCE, Defendants.

No. 21-CR-30003-DWD

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 22, 2022

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DAVID W. DUGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Maxwell's Motion to Suppress (“Motion”) (Doc. 447) items seized during a vehicle search. The Government filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. 547). The Court has held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion and is now prepared to rule. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

I. Background

A grand jury in the Southern District of Illinois originally returned a 13-count Indictment (Doc. 1) against Defendant and six co-Defendants. A 13-count Superseding Indictment (Doc. 671) was subsequently returned against Defendant and four coDefendants, alleging a racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and 1963(a) (Count 1). (Doc 671). Defendant was also charged with murder in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) and Section 2 (Count 2), use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(C)(1)(A) and Section 2 (Counts 3, 6, 8, & 10), use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence causing death under 18 U.S.C § 924(j)(1) and Section 2 (Count 4), and attempted murder in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) and Section 2 (Counts 5, 7, & 9). (Doc. 671).

A. The Traffic Stop, “Dog Sniff,” and Vehicle Search

On November 23, 2019, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) allegedly learned of a threat of violence to a confidential informant (“CI”). (Doc. 447, pg. 1). Special Agent Timothy Miller and another Special Agent met with the CI, who was able to assure the Special Agents that he or she was not in danger. (Doc. 447, pg. 1). That same day, the CI made a recorded phone call to Defendant, who allegedly indicated he was in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and intended to harm an unidentified individual. (Docs. 447, pg. 1; 547, pg. 1). Defendant had allegedly been drinking. (Doc. 547, pg. 1)

ATF agents and Task Force Officers then sought and eventually located Defendant driving his vehicle in Cape Girardeau. (Docs. 447, pgs. 1-2; 547, pgs. 1-2). ATF agents observed Defendant fail to use his turn signal and relayed that information to officers of the Cape Girardeau Police Department, who initiated a traffic stop. (Doc. 447, pg. 2; 547, pgs. 2, 5). Defendant denied he had been drinking; nevertheless, he was ordered out of the vehicle to complete a sobriety test. (Docs. 447, pg. 2; 547, pg. 3). The results of the sobriety test were negative; however, by this time, a canine arrived on scene and thereafter alerted to the vehicle. (Docs. 447, pg. 2; 547, pg. 3). A subsequent search of the vehicle resulted in the officer finding a 9mm Ruger handgun in the glove compartment of the vehicle. (Docs. 447, pg. 2; 547, pg. 3). Ballistic testing revealed that the handgun, and one of the two handguns obtained from the other passengers, was used in two shootings investigated by ATF. (Doc. 547, pgs. 2, 4).

B. Defendant's Motion

Now, Defendant argues he was subjected to an unlawful traffic stop and arrest by officers who did not have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. (Doc. 447, pg. 3). By extension, Defendant argues he was subjected to an unlawful vehicle search. (Doc. 447, pg. 3). Defendant notes it was ATF agents who observed the alleged traffic infraction, yet local law enforcement conducted the traffic stop. (Doc. 447, pgs. 4-5, 7). Defendant further notes no officer smelled alcohol or drugs during the traffic stop. (Doc. 447, pgs. 5, 7). As such, Defendant argues he was unlawfully seized. (Doc. 447, pgs. 3-5). Defendant also argues the “dog sniff” occurred during the unlawful seizure, and the vehicle search occurred due to the “dog sniff.” (Doc. 447, pgs. 6, 9). Defendant points out that the “dog sniff” was not logged in the canine's service record. (Docs. 641 & 6411). For these reasons, Defendant argues the Court must suppress all evidence taken from his vehicle, presumably the handgun retrieved from the glove compartment. (Doc. 447, pgs. 9-10).^[1]

In response, the Government argues the traffic stop was permissible due to Defendant's traffic violation, i.e., the failure to use a turn signal, and the information collectively known to the officers and agents. (Doc. 547, pgs. 4-5). The Government notes the officers of the Cape Girardeau Police Department acted in reliance on the information provided by ATF and Task Force Officers, who witnessed the traffic violation, and each law enforcement agency would have similarly conducted the traffic stop. (Doc. 547, pg. 5). Likewise, the Government notes, that even absent Defendant's traffic violation, the traffic stop was justified by the information provided to ATF by the CI. (Doc. 547, pg. 6).

Further, the Government argues Defendant was subjected to a lawful seizure, not an arrest. (Doc. 547, pgs. 4, 7). It again notes the collective knowledge of the officers and agents, which justified the seizure. (Doc. 547, pg. 8). The Government also argues the seizure was reasonable in length and permitted the “dog sniff.” (Doc. 547, pgs. 8, 10). The Government posits, “the dog sniff occurred while conducting ordinary inquiries incident to the stop, such as running the occupants' identifications for warrants.” (Doc. 547, pg. 8). The Government states “approximately three minutes had elapsed from the time officers began running the identifications of the three occupants for warrants and when the K-9 unit arrived.” (Doc. 547, pg. 10). At that time, Defendant was completing a sobriety test. (Doc. 547, pg. 10). For similar reasons, the Government asserts the “dog sniff” did not prolong the traffic stop. (Doc. 547, pgs. 8-9). Regardless, the Government argues a reasonable suspicion allowed the officers to extend the traffic stop for a “dog sniff.” (Doc. 547, pgs. 10-11). Once the canine alerted to the vehicle, the Government argues the officers had probable cause to search the entire vehicle. (Doc. 547, pgs. 1112).

C. Evidentiary Hearing on Defendant's Motion

On November 15, 2022, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion, at which time the Court received testimony from ATF Special Agent Timothy Miller, former Cape Girardeau Police Department and ATF Task Force Officer Brian Eggers, Cape Girardeau Police Department Officer Joseph Hellmann, and former Cape Girardeau Police Department Officer Gabriel Yoder. Certain body camera footage of the officers was admitted without objection at the hearing.^[2] (Tr. at Doc. 635, pgs. 33-34, 12122, 129-30). The Court has reviewed each exhibit. The hearing evidence is summarized below.

1. ATF Special Agent Timothy Miller

Special Agent Miller has investigated the Gangster Disciples in Missouri and Illinois. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pg. 40). He testified about two separate shootings, allegedly involving members of the Gangster Disciples, that occurred in Bridgeton, Missouri, on April 28, 2018, and Cape Girardeau, Missouri, on June 3, 2018. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pgs. 3943). Defendant, among others, was identified as being involved in each of the shootings. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pgs. 42-44). Further, Special Agent Miller testified that at least one of the same guns was used in each of the shootings. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pg. 44).

On November 23, 2019, Special Agent Miller met with a CI involved in the investigation of the Gangster Disciples. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pgs. 47-50). Special Agent Miller was working to subdue a threat of violence against the CI. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pg. 50). Special Agent Miller had the CI make a recorded phone call to Defendant. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pg. 50). During that phone call, which Special Agent Miller overheard in real time, Defendant indicated he was in Cape Girardeau and had been drinking. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pgs. 51-52). Special Agent Miller testified that Defendant was having a problem with an unidentified person that he “was going to slide up on” with “some of the guys.” (Tr. at Doc. 635, pg. 52). Defendant “stated clearly” that he was going to initiate a confrontation or fight with the unidentified person. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pg. 52). Special Agent Miller testified that Defendant said he was not “going to be on any shooting,” but indicated that he might stab or use a baseball bat against the unidentified person. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pgs. 53-54, 66).

After hearing these threats, Special Agent Miller traveled to Cape Girardeau, where he intended to intervene before any violence occurred. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pgs. 5455). Law enforcement began searching Cape Girardeau for Defendant. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pgs. 55-56). Special Agent Miller testified that, in the early morning of November 24, 2019, patrol officers interacted with Defendant and two passengers of his vehicle during a traffic stop. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pg. 56). Special Agent Miller went to the scene of, but did not actually participate in, the traffic stop. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pgs. 56-57). However, Special Agent Miller indicated that he “probably would have conveyed [a] preference that [the officers] be able to search the car.” (Tr. at Doc. 635, pg. 67). Special Agent Miller further indicated that he would have relayed the information known to him at the time to Officer Eggers, namely, the threats of violence and the mutual public safety interest in stopping the car and making contact with Defendant. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pgs. 67-68).

Three guns were recovered by the officers during the traffic stop. (Tr. at Doc. 635, pg. 57). A gun was recovered from the waistband of each passenger of the vehicle. (Tr. at Doc. 635 pg. 58). The third gun was recovered during a...