United States v. Steffens

418 F.Supp.3d 337

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Patrick Layne STEFFENS and Jeremy William Lillich, Defendants.

No. 19-CR-4022-LTS-KEM

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

Signed November 4, 2019

John H. Lammers, US Attorney's Office, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.

Jim K. McGough, Omaha, NE, Michael Kirk Williams, Hinton, IA, for Defendants.

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge

I. INTRODUCTION ...345

II. BACKGROUND ...345

A. Procedural History ...345

B. Relevant Facts ...345

III. APPLICABLE STANDARDS ...345

IV. DISCUSSION ...350

A. Lillich's Objections to the Factual Findings ...350

B. Legality of the Initial Encounter ...351

1. Judge Mahoney's Analysis ...351

2. The Government's Objection ...352

3. Lillich's Objections ...353

4. Steffens' Objections ...353

5. Analysis ...353

C. Legality of the Second Encounter ...362

1. Judge Mahoney's Analysis ...362

2. The Government's Objection ...363

3. Lillich's Objections ...364

4. Analysis ...365

D. Lillich's Motion to Suppress Due to Lack of Miranda Warnings ...369

1. Judge Mahoney's Analysis ...369

2. Lillich's Objection ...369

3. Analysis ...370

E. Steffens' Arguments to Suppress Evidence from His Cell Phone ...371

1. Judge Mahoney's Analysis ...371

2. Steffens' Objection ...372

3. Analysis ...372

F. Lillich's Motion to Sever ...374

1. Judge Mahoney's Analysis ...374

2. Lillich's Objection ...374

3. Analysis ...374

V. CONCLUSION ...375

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) by the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, Chief United States Magistrate Judge. Doc. No. 75. Judge Mahoney recommends that I (1) grant in part and deny in part Jeremy Lillich's motion to suppress evidence related to his first and second encounters with law enforcement (Doc. No. 27), (2) deny Patrick Steffens' motion to suppress (Doc. No. 50), (3) deny Lillich's motion to suppress related to the lack of Miranda warnings (Doc. No. 56) and (4) deny Lillich's motion to sever (Doc. No. 42).

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On March 20, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment (Doc. No. 3) charging defendants Steffens and Lillich with one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 546 and 541(a)(1) and one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Lillich filed his first motion to suppress evidence (Doc. No. 27) on April 16, 2019, which was followed by a motion to sever the defendants' trial (Doc. No. 42) on May 8, 2019, and a second motion to suppress evidence (Doc. No. 56) on May 23, 2019. The Government resisted each of these motions. Doc. Nos. 41, 45, 67. Steffens also filed a motion to suppress evidence and request a Franks hearing (Doc. No. 50) on May 22, 2019. The Government resisted this motion as well. Doc. No. 58.

Judge Mahoney held an evidentiary and Franks hearing on the motions on June 20, 2019. During the hearing, Judge Mahoney received Government's Exhibits 1 through 6 and defendants' Exhibits A through C into evidence.¹ She then issued her R&R on July 23, 2019. The Government (Doc. No. 84), Lillich (Doc. No. 85) and Steffens (Doc. No. 86) filed objections to the R&R on August 12, 2019.

B. Relevant Facts

Judge Mahoney made detailed factual findings in her R&R. Doc. No. 75 at 2–9. Only Lillich raises specific objections to the factual findings.² See Doc. No. 85 at 4. Nonetheless, I adopt Judge Mahoney's factual findings as summarized in the R&R.

In the early morning hours of February 3, 2019, Sergeant Lenz and a reserve deputy with the Woodbury County Sheriff's Office were on patrol in the small town of Sloan, Iowa, due to break-ins the night before at a church and a school. They noticed a vehicle in a car wash bay (around 3:00 a.m.) and decided to observe from a short distance away. Sergeant Lenz was concerned about a possible burglary, given the break-ins the night before, the late hour, and recent car wash burglaries in the surrounding area. With regard to the latter, Sergeant Lenz testified that he receives notifications that contain information about what occurred in Woodbury County on the previous shift, as well as a summary of crimes in surrounding counties. Through these notifications and word-of-mouth from other officers, he knew about car wash burglaries in Lawton, Correctionville, and Sergeant Bluff (towns in Woodbury County); as well as car wash burglaries in Monona County, Iowa; and Cherokee County, Iowa. Sergeant Lenz could not give any specifics about these burglaries—including any information about the suspects, how long ago the burglaries occurred, and the time of day they occurred—other than that the Lawton burglary involved a cash machine outside a bay being ripped from the wall and that the Sergeant Bluff burglary involved cash machines being broken into. Sergeant Lenz also knew about an attempted burglary of the money lockbox at the Sloan car wash about a month prior, which occurred on January 1, 2019, at around 7:00 p.m. See Doc. 74.

The Sloan car wash has two manual car wash bays that are open and lit twenty-four hours. Both bays have two doors, so that a person can drive in, stop and wash their car, and then drive out. The owner of the car wash testified that the bay doors are kept closed in the winter months so the bays stay heated. The south bay (entrance) doors are manual, opened and closed by rope pulleys. The north bay (exit) doors are automatic—they open by pressing a button and automatically close when the car drives over a sensor.

On the night in question, as the officers drove by the car wash, they could see a vehicle and a person's feet in a car wash bay that had the door closed, next to an empty bay that had the door open (an automatic exit door). Sergeant Lenz turned around, drove back past the carwash, and parked about half a city block away from the car wash with the lights off. From that location, Sergeant Lenz testified that they could see all the way into the back of the open car wash bay. He testified that he observed a person walk from the closed bay through a doorway to the back of the open bay, and then back into the closed bay, and that he believed the person might have been acting as a lookout (or coming to investigate based on the sound of Sergeant Lenz's car driving by). Surveillance video from the car wash shows that Steffens walked just outside the doorway in between the occupied and unoccupied car wash bays, stopped briefly (about one second) in the back of the unoccupied car wash bay with his body angled toward the open bay door, and then returned to the occupied bay. See Govt. Ex. 2A, 3:03:15-24 (video from the unoccupied bay—Steffens is visible in the bottom right corner); Govt. Ex. 2B 3:03:15-24 (video from the occupied bay). This is the only instance of Steffens leaving the occupied bay or otherwise looking out of it. Although it could be said that Steffens "looked out" of the car wash bay from the back of the bay, the surveillance footage shows he did not turn his head or otherwise "look around" in any way.

After seeing Steffens, the officers decided to investigate further. Sergeant Lenz and the reserve deputy entered the bay occupied by Defendants by walking through the open garage bay door of the empty bay and walking the length of the empty bay to the open door between the two bays (the door Steffens had just appeared in). They announced their presence as law enforcement as they did so (and Sergeant Lenz carried a flashlight). They wore their sheriff's deputy uniforms with their weapons holstered and visible on their person.

In the car wash bay, they discovered Lillich and Steffens drying a car with the hood popped. They did not see any evidence indicating that Lillich and Steffens planned to burglarize the car wash. Sergeant Lenz asked Lillich and Steffens what they were doing at the car wash at 3:00 a.m., and Lillich responded that they had just been at the WinnaVegas Casino and that he often washes his car after going to the casino. Sergeant Lenz testified that in the past, he has been dispatched to the WinnaVegas Casino for drug trafficking activity and that the Woodbury County Sheriff's Office encounters drugs connected to the WinnaVegas Casino on an almost daily basis.

Sergeant Lenz explained to Lillich and Steffens that he was checking in based on the recent burglaries. He asked them for their identification, explaining that he needed their names for the report he would write about the contact. Steffens handed Sergeant Lenz a driver's license, and Lillich gave him an identification card, explaining that he was barred from driving and that Steffens had been driving the car. Sergeant Lenz recognized Lillich's name as a person involved with drugs. Sergeant Lenz radioed Lillich's and Steffens's information to dispatch, and while waiting for the results, he talked with Lillich and Steffens about their future plans for the night (they stated they were headed back to Sioux City).

After being on the scene for about four minutes, Sergeant Lenz went back to his car to scan the identification cards, while the reserve deputy stayed in the bay with Steffens and Lillich. The surveillance video from the car wash depicts Lillich seemingly asking the reserve deputy for permission to continue cleaning his car (which was granted—the reserve deputy gestures as if saying, "go ahead"). See Govt. Ex. 2B, 3:08:22. Shortly after Sergeant Lenz left the bay (about thirty seconds), another sheriff's deputy (Deputy Simoni) arrived and stood in the doorway between the two bays. While Sergeant Lenz was gone, Lillich and Steffens dried the car, and at various times, shut the hood and opened the driver's side and passenger side doors to access items in the car.

Sergeant Lenz returned after about three minutes and gave Lillich and Steffens their identification cards back. All three officers started to leave, going into the unoccupied car wash bay and walking across it toward the open bay door.

...