United States v. Thomas

1

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Christian DeMarco Thomas, Defendant.

No. 2:22-cr-00129-GMN-DJA

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 26, 2023

[ECF No. 33]

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

While on routine patrol late one evening, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) Officer Michael Chatterton (Chatterton) observed a vehicle driving in either a distracted or impaired manner, which vehicle returned as possibly stolen after Chatterton conducted a record check. Chatterton stopped the vehicle and temporarily detained the driver, defendant Christian Thomas (Thomas). After confirming the vehicle was stolen and the owner wished to pick it up other responding officers conducted a search of the vehicle which they described as an inventory search in anticipation of releasing the car to the owner. During this search officers discovered a firearm with an extended magazine underneath the driver's side seat. Upon hearing this Thomas began adjusting his waistband which led officers to conduct a pat down search resulting in a second magazine dropping to the ground. Upon learning Thomas was a prohibited person, officers arrested Thomas and he was subsequently charged with possession of the firearm and magazine. Thomas now moves to suppress the weapon and magazine, alleging that the search of the vehicle and his person violated his constitutional rights. Because I find that the evidence was observed during a lawful search of the car and Thomas' person, I deny his motion to suppress.

BACKGROUND

Thomas is charged in an Amended Criminal Indictment with one count of Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) and one count of Felon in Possession of Ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (ECF No. 17). Thomas filed a motion to suppress evidence of the firearm on December 15, 2022. (ECF No. 33). The Government filed a response in opposition to the motion on January 12, 2023. (ECF No. 36). Thomas filed a reply on February 3, 2023. (ECF No. 41).

I conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion on March 1, 2023. (Mins. of Proceedings (ECF No. 47)). The government called two witnesses to testify: Chatterton, and Officer Victor Hernandez, who also responded to the scene. The defense called Officer Cody Suey, another responding officer. The parties submitted 12 exhibits, including all the body worn cameras of the responding officers. After hearing arguments, I ordered the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefs focusing on Thomas' standing to contest the search, why the officers were justified searching the car and the good faith exception for the officers' mistakes in their report. I indicated that I would issue a written Report & Recommendation after considering the supplements. The parties timely filed their supplements. (ECF Nos. 57, 58) on April 12, 2023. This report and recommendation follows.

TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE

On April 21, 2022, LVMPD Patrol Officer Chatterton was working the swing shift alone in a marked patrol vehicle wearing a body camera. At approximately 11:15 p.m. a Ford Taurus in front of Chatterton caught his attention because it was “ping-ponging back and forth in it's lane,” a sign of possible impaired or distracted driving. Upon observing this, Chatterton activated his body camera and ran a DMV registration check on the Taurus. A hit returned indicating the car was registered to a Brandon Knowles and was possibly stolen. “Possibly stolen” meant the car had been reported stolen but no officer followed up with an interview of the individual who reported it stolen nor submitted a subsequent report. Chatterton continued to follow the vehicle to see more signs of possible impairment.

After Chatterton followed the vehicle for a period, it stopped and pulled into a residential driveway in what Chatterton described as a high crime area. Chatterton activated his lights and advised dispatch that he was preparing to preform a high-risk vehicle stop and take the driver “into custody.” Chatterton exited his vehicle and stood next to its doorframe issuing commands to the driver as he exited the Taurus. The driver was later identified as defendant Thomas.

Chatterton testified that “into custody” did not mean that he immediately arrested Thomas. Rather, he handcuffed Thomas for his safety because the vehicle was spotted in a high crime neighborhood that was poorly lit, the vehicle was not cleared of other passengers, the vehicle was possibly stolen, Thomas was not following Chatterton's commands as to where he should stand, and Chatterton was still the only officer on scene. Chatterton told Thomas upon inquiry that he was handcuffing him because the vehicle was possibly stolen.

During a subsequent pat down search of Thomas, Chatterton felt a “large rectangular bulge” in Thomas' left pocket. When Chatterton touched that part of Thomas, Thomas said “phone.” Chatterton did not further search that pocket. Later, when discussing his phone, Thomas stated his phone was in the vehicle. Thomas referenced his phone being in the car after suggesting that Chatterton could call the owner of the vehicle, whom Thomas referred to as “Jenni-Tiffany.”

After obtaining Thomas' name and date of birth, Chatterton continued to question Thomas to determine if he was lawfully in possession of the vehicle or if it was stolen. Thomas next stated that he rented the vehicle through Turo, a car rental application and that he rented it two days earlier. At this time two additional patrol officers arrived and conducted a “protective sweep” of the vehicle to “clear” the vehicle of other people. No other people or incriminating evidence were discovered.

Chatterton testified that while this sweep was occurring, Thomas was not listening to commands about where to stand and repeatedly turned his back on Chatterton to look at the vehicle. This indicated to Chatterton that Thomas was concerned with something in the vehicle or was still impaired such that he could not understand the instructions.

While clearing the vehicle, Chatterton asked for the keys so they could open the trunk to ensure no one was in there. Thomas refused to give them to officers. This concerned Chatterton. After this, when questioned further regarding the name of the person who owned the vehicle, Thomas claimed not to know. This inconsistency caused Chatterton to think Thomas was making up a story about who the vehicle was rented from, and that Thomas was not legally in possession of the vehicle.

Once the vehicle was cleared, Chatterton re-entered his vehicle to confirm with DMV the information on the Taurus being reported stolen was correct. Chatterton confirmed the vehicle was reported stolen and was informed by dispatch that the reported owner wished to retrieve the vehicle. Chatterton testified that per LVMPD policy, once the owner wants to retrieve the vehicle, officers preform an inventory search of the vehicle to list the property found in the vehicle before it is returned.

With this new information, Chatterton continued to question Thomas as to how he obtained the vehicle. Chatterton suggested Thomas show him on the phone app the information regarding the rental. During this time other officers were beginning the inventory search and Thomas was more focused on the vehicle than providing Chatterton with rental information from his app. Thomas also changed his story again and claimed that the vehicle was rented an hour before the stop by his “baby's momma” from someone at a Siegel's Suites. When pressed why he stopped at the residence where the investigation was occurring, Thomas stated he was delivering food to the residence through Door Dash. That was never confirmed.

Nearly simultaneous to this, officers conducting the inventory stated they found a weapon under the driver's seat. Upon hearing this, Thomas adjusted his waistband which concerned the officers. They immediately conducted another pat-down search of Thomas during which time a magazine dropped to the ground. Chatterton ran a record check on Thomas and determined he was a prohibited person with multiple felony convictions.

Thomas was formally arrested and placed in the back seat of the patrol car. Shortly after, Thomas experienced a medical emergency which he indicated likely was caused by his ingesting two fentanyl pills earlier in the evening. Thomas was thereafter transported to the hospital for medical treatment.

LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

1. Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment addresses “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S Const. Amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment protects reasonable and legitimate expectations of privacy. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 352-53 (1967). It protects “people, not places,” and extends to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrests. Id. at 351; Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002)). Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and evidence derived from it may be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88 (1963). However, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officer's actions are supported by a reasonable suspicion. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273.

. Standing

The Government argues that Thomas did not meet his burden and therefore lacks standing to challenge the search. It argues that Thomas did not own the vehicle; the vehicle was reported possibly stolen; Thomas was aware he was not in legal possession of the vehicle because he...