United States v. Smith

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMAL BRANDON SMITH, Defendant.

No. 23-CR-2020-CJW-MAR

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

August 9, 2023

ORDER

C.J Williams United States District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on defendant's Motion to Suppress. (Doc. 25). The government filed a timely resistance. (Doc. 28). The Court referred defendant's motion to the Honorable Mark A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). On June 9, 2023, Judge Roberts held a hearing on the motion to suppress. (Doc. 29). Then, on July 12, 2023, Judge Roberts recommended the Court deny defendant's motion to suppress. (Doc. 32). Defendant objected to Judge Roberts' R&R. (Doc. 34). For the following reasons, the Court overrules defendant's objections, adopts Judge Roberts' R&R, and denies defendant's Motion to Suppress.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court reviews Judge Roberts' R&R under the statutory standards found in Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1):

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

See also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) (stating identical requirements). While examining these statutory standards, the United States Supreme Court explained:

Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). Thus, a district court may review de novo any issue in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation at any time. Id. If a party files an objection to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must review the objected portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of an objection, the district court is not required “to give any more consideration to the magistrate [judge]'s report than the court considers appropriate.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

After reviewing the hearing transcript (Doc. 33), the Court finds that Judge Roberts accurately and thoroughly set forth the relevant facts in the R&R. The Court adopts Judge Roberts' summary of the facts here, with minor modifications as noted below, to reflect objections to findings of fact. When relevant, the Court relies on and discusses additional facts in conjunction with its legal analysis.

At approximately 5:40 p.m. on June 16, 2022, Chickasaw County Sheriff's Office Deputy Cole Tweten conducted a routine traffic stop on Highway 218 for what he suspected to be illegally tinted windows on a red Dodge Charger. (Doc. 26.) Deputy Tweten's subsequent report noted that Defendant was also leaning back behind the B pillar of the vehicle which he believed to be a possible indicator of criminal activity. (Id.) Deputy Tweten had about ten to fifteen seconds to view Defendant's window tinting and seat position as the Charger drove past. (Tweten, Hr'g Test. at 19.) As Deputy Tweten drove behind Defendant, he ran the Charger's license plate on his in-car computer and was alerted that the registered vehicle owner had “violent tendencies.” (Id. at 6.) A “violent tendencies” alert indicates that an individual has previously come into contact with law enforcement in a violent capacity. (Id.) After pulling over the Charger, Deputy Tweten initially approached it without his tint reader for safety purposes. (Id.) A strong odor of marijuana was coming from the interior of the vehicle. (Id.) Defendant provided Deputy Tweten his driver's license and insurance information. (Gov. Exhibit C). Deputy Tweten communicated to Defendant that if the tinting was [il]legal, he would receive a warning. (Id.)

Noting the violent tendencies alert and the strong marijuana odor, Deputy Tweten asked the Defendant to join him in his patrol vehicle while he ran his information. (Id.) The computer system in the patrol vehicle reported that Defendant had a “no contact” order and was prohibited from owning a firearm. (Id.) When asked about the marijuana odor, Defendant denied there were any illegal items in the vehicle. (Id.) However, after further questioning, Defendant acknowledged the presence of burnt marijuana. (Id.) Deputy Tweten notified Defendant that he would be searching the vehicle and ordered Defendant to remain in the patrol vehicle. Deputy Tweten then assured Defendant that, if there were only burnt marijuana “roaches,” then he would throw the burnt marijuana remnants in the grass and let Defendant proceed to work. Defendant became increasingly nervous and admitted there was marijuana in the trunk of his vehicle, but firmly denied possessing a firearm.

Defendant opened the car door and was ordered to stay inside the patrol vehicle. (Id.) Defendant disregarded several orders to remain seated and attempted to return to his vehicle on foot. Deputy Tweten took Defendant by the arm and ordered him to return to the patrol vehicle. Defendant freed his arm from Deputy Tweten's grip and began running back to his vehicle. Defendant did not reach his vehicle and was taken to the ground. He was then placed in handcuffs for officer safety. Deputy Tweten's body camera momentarily stopped recording when it was hit during the physical altercation. Defendant was placed in the patrol vehicle for the remainder of the stop and vehicle search.

Deputy Chad Walderbach arrived at the scene as backup while Defendant was handcuffed and seated in the back of Deputy Tweten's patrol vehicle. (Doc. 26.) When Deputy Walderbach approached the Charger, the driver's side window was partially rolled down and the passenger side window was up. (Walderbach, Hr'g Test. at 42.) He could clearly view the steering wheel and the dashboard through the tint. (Id.) Deputy Walderbach then completed a second tint-reading and assisted with the search of the Charger. (Id.) He did not have any interaction with Defendant. (Walderbach, Hr'g Test. at 41.) Iowa window tinting standards require that the front windshield and front-side windows have at least 70% light transmittance. Iowa Code Section 321.438(2) (2022); Iowa Admin. Code r. 761-450.7(321), 450.7(2) (“‘Excessively dark or reflective' means that the windshield, front side window or front sidewing does not meet a minimum standard of transparency of 70 percent light transmittance.”) Deputy Tweten's tint-reading result was 75-76% and Deputy Walderbach's reading was 72-73%. Thus, Defendant's window tint provided sufficient light transmission under Iowa law and he was not issued any traffic citations. (Doc. 26 at 2.)

The deputies' search of the Charger produced the following: a P80 9x19mm firearm, a magazine, ammunition, a switch device, marijuana, cannabis edibles, psilocybin mushrooms, small plastic baggies, and a scale. (Id.) Defendant was read and acknowledged his Miranda rights when arrested. (Tweten, Hr'g Test. at 15.) Defendant made several unsolicited statements while being transported to jail in the patrol vehicle by Deputy Tweten. Defendant stated that he believed the firearm was legal, but that it was just unregistered. (Id.) He declined to participate in an interview at the Chickasaw County Jail. At the jail, $100 and a blue iPhone were seized from Defendant's person.

Law enforcement obtained a warrant and executed a search warrant for the contents of the iPhone on June 20, 2022. (Doc. 26-1.) The phone contained photos and videos of large amounts of marijuana and marijuana usage. (Tweten, Hr'g Test. at 14.) There was also a series of internet searches related to 3D-printed switches and automatic gun laws in Iowa. (Id.) A switch attachment is used to make a firearm shoot automatically. (Id.)

Deputy Tweten was questioned about his training in connection with suspected criminal activity. (Tweten, Hr'g Test. at 16.) Approximately one month before the traffic stop, in May of 2022, he attended a course regarding traffic stops and interdiction. (Id.) He learned of signs to look for while conducting his normal enforcement that may indicate criminal activity. (Id.) In his affidavit in support of the search warrant, he stated that a driver leaning back was a possible indicator of criminal activity. (Doc. 26-1 at 3.)

Deputy Tweten's report states:

My attention was also drawn to this vehicle specifically because as the vehicle passed me, the driver of the vehicle had leaned back behind the B pillar of the vehicle and no driver could be seen as it went by.

(Doc. 26, Def. Ex. B.) Deputy Tweten's affidavit states:

As the vehicle passed me the driver of the vehicle had leaned back behind the B pillar of the vehicle and no driver could be seen as it went by. From my training and experience I knew this among other reactions to the presence of law enforcement to be a possible indicator of criminal activity.

(Doc. 26-1.) These written statements are somewhat confusing about when the driver leaned back, i.e., whether the driver of the Charger was simply driving along in a reclined position or if he was observed by Deputy Tweten moving into a reclined position, perhaps in response to seeing a patrol vehicle.

At the hearing, Deputy Tweten testified that the driver of the Charger had already reclined before the Charger came into the deputy's field of vision. (Tweten, Hr'g Test. at 32.) I

...