United States v. Stanford

500 F.Supp.3d 264

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Nylere STANFORD, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 20-03-LPS

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

Signed November 13, 2020

David C. Weiss, Michael F. McTaggart, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, Wilmington, DE, Attorneys for United States of America.

Edson A. Bostic, David L. Pugh, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Wilmington, DE, Attorneys for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

STARK, U.S. District Judge

Defendant Nylere Stanford is charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). (D.I. 1) Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence seized from 615 S. Buttonwood Street, Wilmington, DE 19801 pursuant to a Delaware search warrant. (D.I. 19-20) Having considered the parties’ filings and related materials (see, e.g. , D.I. 19-21, 24-27), the Court will deny Defendant's motion.

I. Background

According to law enforcement, a group of four or five people (made up of one female and a group of males) robbed a convenience store in Winston-Salem, North Carolina on or about September 18, 2019. (See D.I. 19 at C 1) It is alleged that one male was armed with a silver semi-automatic pistol, while another of the males was armed with a black semi-automatic rifle. (Id. )

On October 8, 2019, the Sheriff's Office of Forsyth County, North Carolina obtained warrants to arrest certain individuals alleged to be connected to the robbery; this included Defendant. (See D.I. 19 at ¶ 2 and Ex. 1; D.I. 24 Ex. 1 (hereinafter "Arrest Warrant" or "AW")) The Arrest Warrant stated there was probable cause to believe the individuals (including Defendant) stole $3,000 from the convenience store while in possession of a "SILVER SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL WITH LASER/LIGHT ATTACHMNET AND BLACK SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE." (AW at *1) While the Arrest Warrant does not explain how Defendant was identified, other evidence in the Court's record makes it appear that one allegedly involved individual, Daniel Potts, was identified by an eyewitness, while Defendant and his girlfriend, Khadija Potts, were allegedly identified by Detective Faircloth, a Forsyth County Deputy who did not personally witness the incident but compared security camera footage from the store with photos.¹ (D.I. 19 at ¶ 2)

Also on October 8, 2019, Detective Faircloth made contact with Detective Justin Cannon of the Wilmington Police Department (who is also assigned to the U.S. Marshal's Service First State Task Force), informing him that North Carolina law enforcement believed Defendant was in Wilmington and requesting assistance in apprehending Defendant pursuant to the Arrest Warrant. (Id. at ¶ 3)

On October 15, 2019, Daniel Potts and Khadija Potts were arrested. (D.I. 19 at ¶ 4) Daniel Potts was eventually released on bond, while Khadija Potts was released that same day with all charges dismissed. (Id. ) Defendant contends that "[o]n information and belief, it had been determined that Detective Faircloth had mis-identified [Khadija Potts] from the grainy black and white video." (Id. )

On October 23, 2019, Detective Cannon applied for, and received, a search warrant, authorizing the use of a Cell Site Simulator to obtain the location of a phone believed to be possessed by Defendant. (D.I. 20 Ex. 3 (hereinafter "Phone Warrant" or "PW"); see also D.I. 19 at ¶ 5) The Phone Warrant indicates the Defendant's previous employer provided the phone number to North Carolina law enforcement and that the number was also associated with a prior incident alleged to have involved Defendant. (PW at *65-66, ¶ 9) Detective Cannon stated that probable cause for the Phone Warrant was based on a prior search warrant directed to Sprint around October 16, 2019, which established that Defendant's phone was moving about in an area of Wilmington known to be a "high drug and crime area," in which "general surveillance methods are not conducive," and also that the targeted phone was making and receiving calls with phone numbers connected to Defendant's family members and associates. (Id. at *66-67, ¶¶ 16-17) Furthermore, the Phone Warrant states: "it is known that [Defendant] is originally from the Wilmington, Delaware area and has numerous family members as well as associates that can assist him [ ] while on the run from North Carolina." (Id. at *67, ¶ 18) As a result of the Phone Warrant, police developed information that Defendant was staying at 615 S. Buttonwood Street in Wilmington, Delaware. (D.I. 19 at ¶ 6) This address is the home of Defendant's brother. (D.I. 20 at 3)

On the morning of October 24, 2019, the Wilmington Police Department and the U.S. Marshals established a perimeter at 615 S. Buttonwood Street, Wilmington, Delaware. (D.I. 19 at ¶ 7) Law enforcement indicates that the only person seen leaving or entering the property was an individual named Takeesha Gardner, at around 9:15 a.m. (D.I. 24 at 2) When Ms. Gardner was asked, she informed law enforcement that Defendant and his brother, Naki Gibson (who was also wanted by police, on different charges), were in the residence. (D.I. 19 at ¶ 17; D.I. 24 at 2-3) Law enforcement subsequently knocked on the front door of 615 S. Buttonwood Street at about 9:31 a.m., announced "POLICE," and then entered the unlocked residence. (See D.I. 19 at ¶ 17; D.I. 24 at 3)

According to the government, upon finding Defendant laying on the couch in the first floor living area, officers gave numerous commands for Defendant to get up with his hands in the air. (D.I. 24 at 3) Defendant is purported to have been "moving around with his hands underneath him," but was ultimately taken into custody without incident. (Id. ) Defendant's brother, Mr. Gibson, was also taken into custody on an unrelated traffic warrant. (D.I. 19 at ¶ 7; D.I. 24 at 3) Upon conducting a protective sweep of the residence, officers purportedly "observed a partially exposed handgun in plain view under a couch cushion in the same area where [Defendant] had previously been acting suspiciously." (D.I. 24 at 3)

After Defendant was arrested and taken to the Wilmington Police Department, Detective Cannon (who had not been at the residence during execution of the Arrest Warrant) proceeded to apply for a search warrant of 615 S. Buttonwood to retrieve evidence of the alleged robbery. (D.I. 19 Ex. 2 & D.I. 24 Ex. 2 ("Search Warrant" or "SW"); see also D.I. 19 at ¶ 8)² The Search Warrant listed the items to be searched for in three categories: (1) "[a]ny firearms, ammunition, holsters, pawn or sales receipts indicating the sale or purchase, possession or pawning of a firearm," (2) "[c]lothing – a dark colored bucket style hat, a dark colored short sleeve shirt with California and a bear on it, and dark colored sneakers," and (3) "[a]ny papers, identification, or written documents that would indicate a secondary residence." (SW at *50 & 51, ¶¶ 1-3) In the affidavit supporting the application for the Search Warrant, Detective Cannon stated that Defendant was wanted out of North Carolina pursuant to the Arrest Warrant and described the events that had occurred that morning in connection with execution of the Arrest Warrant. (Id. at *52, ¶¶ 2, 4-6)

In particular, Detective Cannon stated as follows:

3. During the investigation by the North Carolina authorities it was learned that [Defendant] and three other accomplices entered a convenience store and robbed it at gun point. Two of the subjects were armed, one with a rifle with a high capacity magazine and another with a black and silver handgun with laser. The Sheriffs office was able to arrest three out of the four subjects and [Defendant] is the last outstanding subject to be apprehended. They also advised that the firearms used in the robbery are believed to still be outstanding.

(Id. at *52, ¶ 3)

Once the Search Warrant application was granted that morning, Officer DiRocco of the Wilmington Police Department (not Detective Cannon) led the search of 615 S. Buttonwood Street. (D.I. 24 at 4) Law enforcement seized a Taurus PT 24/7 semi-automatic pistol loaded with 10 rounds of F.C. 9mm luger ammunition, as well as a black iPhone. (SW at *39-40)

On January 8, 2020, a federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment charging Defendant with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). (D.I. 1) Defendant was subsequently arrested on January 16, 2020. (D.I. 10) Defendant filed his pending motion to suppress on April 29, 2020, seeking to suppress physical evidence seized from the 615 S. Buttonwood Street residence on the basis that the Search Warrant lacks probable cause. (See D.I. 19-20, 24-27) The motion was fully briefed as of June 1, 2020. (See D.I. 25)

II. Legal Standards

The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and instructs, among other things, that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation." U.S. Const. amend. IV ; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(d). In Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the Supreme Court stated that in determining whether probable cause exists, a judge need only "make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." In this context, "[t]he role of a reviewing court is not to decide probable cause de novo , but to determine whether the [judge who issued the search warrant] had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed." United States v. Stearn , 597 F.3d 540, 554 (3d Cir. 2010) ; see also United States v. Ritter , 416 F.3d 256, 264 (3d Cir. 2005) ("[C]onclusions of a neutral [judge] regarding probable cause are entitled to a great deal of deference by a reviewing court,...