United States v. Taylor

634 F.Supp.3d 690

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Lovell TAYLOR, Defendant.

Case No. 21-cr-00242-YGR

United States District Court, N.D. California

Signed October 4, 2022

Alexis Jasmine James, Kevin Yeh, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

John Paul Reichmuth, Graham E. Archer, Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender's Office, Oakland, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge

The Court addresses herein defendant Lovell Taylor's motion to suppress. The crux of the motion turns upon the scope of permissible questions during a routine traffic stop. Specifically, whether it violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to ask for passenger identification and to inquire into passenger probation and parole status during an otherwise routine traffic stop without reasonable suspicion. Notably, the government does not dispute that a routine traffic stop can be abused for investigative purposes and argues at great length that the tactics employed in the present case did not cross the line in violating the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment. This Court disagrees for the reasons set forth in this order.

Since the factual record was not developed with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to reach a resolution after substantial briefing and oral argument, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on September 14, 2022.¹ At the hearing, the government called Contra Costa County sheriff deputies J. Dyer, J. Sabella, and B. McDevitt. Having carefully considered the papers, the record in the case, the parties' oral arguments, the admissible evidence, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the motion to suppress is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Lovell Taylor has been indicted for one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The offense arose out of a warrantless search on October 15, 2020, while Taylor was on parole and probation.

At approximately 2:39 a.m., deputies Dyer and Sabella² were parked in a seemingly concealed drive-way in Martinez, California while monitoring traffic. The two deputies saw a black Ford Expedition exit Highway 4 and run a stop sign by not coming to a complete stop. Without turning on the vehicle's emergency sirens, the deputies then attempted to conduct a traffic enforcement stop by pulling out of their concealed location to pursue the vehicle. However, as the deputies attempted to pursue the vehicle, the Ford Expedition entered the highway again where it exceeded the speed limit.³ As the deputies pursued the vehicle, they observed it change three lanes without signaling, causing other vehicles on the highway to break.⁴ For the first time, the deputies then turned on the police vehicle's emergency sirens and pursued the vehicle as it excited the highway. According to Deputy Dyer, the vehicle did not immediately pull over, and pursuant to his testimony, it took approximately a quarter of a mile for the vehicle to come to a stop. It appears that this stop was on a frontage road.

While Deputy Dyer had routinely conducted traffic stops prior, he admitted that he was nervous because this traffic stop was his first in months and stood out for that reason. Once the Ford Expedition pulled over, Deputy Dyer turned on his flood lights to see into the vehicle. It is undisputed that four people were inside of the vehicle, including Taylor as the passenger in the right-back passenger seat. Having exited his police vehicle, Deputy Dyer approached the driver's side of the vehicle on foot with his flood lights shining into the Ford Expedition.⁵ Deputy Sabella was instructed to approach on the passenger's side of the vehicle which he did. While using his flashlight, Deputy Dyer saw Taylor reach towards the ground and then put an unknown object between him and the other remaining defendant in the back seat.

Having approached the vehicle, Deputy Dyer proceeded to ask all passengers to place their hands on the headrests and/or dashboards. This is consistent with Deputy Sabella's testimony, which indicated that Taylor had his hands somewhere over his head as Deputy Sabella approached the vehicle. Once the passengers, including Taylor, had placed their hands where Deputy Dyer could see them, Deputy Dyer requested that everyone in the vehicle provide identification, which he collected, and asked if anyone was on probation or parole. Taylor responded that he was on parole for armed carjacking and was released from prison two weeks prior. Deputy Dyer admitted that he did not believe there was a gun in the vehicle until Taylor had affirmatively answered his question about being on probation or parole.

While Deputy Sabella remained near the vehicle with its occupants, Deputy Dyer proceeded to return to his vehicle to run checks on all of the vehicle's occupants, where he confirmed Taylor's parole status, and also learned that he was on felony probation for illegally possessing a firearm. Taylor's information was accessed first, because according to Deputy Dyer, his identification card was on the top of the stack of identification cards that he obtained. Based upon Deputy Dyer's testimony, his records search automatically pulls up various categories of information, including for example, DMV records, probation and parole status, and whether an individual is registered in offender databases. While each category of information is automatically populated into the database, Deputy Dyer was required to affirmatively open each message to learn about the contents of that message.⁶ The record shows that inquiries into all of the vehicle's occupants took approximately four minutes.

Based upon his experience as a patrol officer, Deputy Dyer understood that Taylor had a search condition per the terms of his parole and probation. Given this status, Deputy Dyer asked Taylor to exit the vehicle and searched his person.⁷ Nothing was found during the search. Taylor was then placed on the curb without restraint, where he was asked if there was anything illegal in the car. Taylor indicated that he did not want to go to jail, and when Deputy Dyer directly asked if there was a gun in the car, Taylor nodded his head indicating yes. Taylor was then handcuffed, and the remaining occupants were asked to step out of the vehicle and were placed in handcuffs. At this time, no one had been formally placed under arrest by either deputy.

Once all individuals had been secured, Deputy Dyer proceeded to search the car, where he picked up a jacket that he saw Taylor place on top of something next to him. A closed black handbag was under the jacket. Deputy Dyer unzipped the handbag and found a loaded gun with ten bullets, as well as a separate high-capacity magazine with 25 bullets.⁸ Dispatch confirmed that the gun was unregistered.

After securing the gun, Taylor was escorted to the patrol vehicle. Considering Taylor under arrest, he was read his Miranda rights.⁹ Taylor proceeded to decline to answer any questions. Deputy Dyer then began to question Teuila Failauga, who was in the back seat of the car with Taylor, as well as the other occupants of the vehicle. None of these occupants were advised of Miranda rights. When asked about the weapon, Failauga admitted she was aware Taylor had a firearm on him, that she had seen him carry it on more than one occasion, and that she believed he was carrying the firearm for protection since they were on their way to the casino. The remaining two passengers indicated that they had no knowledge of the weapon being in the car. All of the remaining occupants were then permitted to drive away without any traffic citation being issued. Despite witnessing at least three traffic infractions, Deputy Dyer testified that he believed that issuing a warning was sufficient.

Taylor now moves to suppress all fruits of: (1) the warrantless seizure of Taylor; (2) the warrantless arrest of Taylor; (3) the warrantless search of Taylor; (4) the un-Mirandized questioning of Taylor and the other car occupants; and (5) the warrantless search of the car, jacket, and handbag.

II. DISCUSSION

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated[.]" U.S. Const. amend IV. Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable. United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2012). The parties do not dispute that the government bears the burden to show an exception applies by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Vasey, 834 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, the pending motion to suppress raises myriad issues. However, the crux of the motion to suppress turns upon the lawfulness of Deputy Dyer's inquiries into passenger identification, probation, and parole status with respect to the traffic stop at issue. Indeed, this was the primary issue discussed at both hearings held on the matter. Since the Court finds Deputy Dyer's inquiries unconstitutionally prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion, and because the discovery of the gun is the fruit of the unlawful search, the motion to suppress is GRANTED.

A. WHETHER THE DEPUTIES INITIATED A LAWFUL TRAFFIC STOP

Investigatory vehicle stops are lawful when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the vehicle has committed a traffic violation. United States v. Choudhry, 461 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, Deputy Dyer stopped the vehicle at issue after it failed to come to a complete stop, exceeded the speed limit during pursuit, and crossed three lanes of traffic without signaling and impacting traffic on the highway. Therefore, the initial traffic stop was reasonable and a permissible seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

B. WHETHER DEPUTY DYER UNREASONABLY PROLONGED THE TRAFFIC STOP

Taylor argues that Deputy Dyer...