United States v. Vining

675 F.Supp.3d 778

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Steven J. VINING Jr., Defendant.

2:21-CR-20715-TGB-DRG-1

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Signed May 30, 2023

C. Barrington Wilkins, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.

Federal Community Defender, Public Defender, Detroit, MI, David C. Tholen, Public Defender, Federal Defender Office, Detroit, MI, Mark A. Satawa, Satawa Law, PLLC, Southfield, MI, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS (ECF NO. 31)

TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant Steven Vining Jr. moves to suppress evidence seized by Michigan State Police ("MSP") troopers and Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") agents at the Greyhound Bus Station in Detroit, Michigan on September 28, 2021. Defendant's Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 31, PageID.121. A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with various drug offenses.¹ Defendant makes several arguments in support of his motion to suppress: (1) that the officers had no reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain him; (2) that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him; and (3) that the warrantless search of his bag violated the Fourth Amendment. He therefore contends that the drugs found in his bag and the statements he made during his custodial interrogation should be excluded as fruits of an unlawful search and seizure. Id. at PageID.125. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion to suppress evidence is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

At approximately 12:55 p.m. on September 18, 2021, Defendant arrived at the Greyhound Bus Station ("the Station") in Detroit, Michigan carrying a bag. ECF No. 31, PageID.120. Defendant was first spotted by FBI Detective Matthew Kiser, a member of a team of MSP and FBI officers working a drug interdiction operation, who was stationed in a covert location near the front entrance of the Station. Dec. 20, 2022 Hearing Transcript, ECF No. 36, PageID.164, PageID.169. Kiser saw Defendant, a Black man wearing a yellow construction vest, hurrying into the Station after he exited a vehicle that pulled up to the front door. Id. at PageID.169. Kiser communicated his observations and a description of Defendant to officers inside the Station. Id. at PageID.170. From inside the Station, FBI Special Agent Bradley Cioma observed Defendant as he "quickly walked into the bus station carrying a bag and looked around." Cioma Affidavit, ECF No. 1, PageID.3.

According to Cioma, Defendant's "last-minute arrival" increased the officers' suspicion, "as this is a common tactic used by narcotics traffickers to limit their time to be observed by law enforcement." Id. Consistent with security video footage presented at the evidentiary hearing, Cioma testified that after Defendant entered the Station, he witnessed Defendant approach the front window of the building and knock on the glass, attempting to attract the attention of someone outside. ECF No. 36, PageID.191. Cioma communicated this observation to the other officers who had been watching Defendant since Kiser first reported his late arrival. Id. at PageID.192.

Based on these observations, two officers approached Defendant, who then allegedly set his bag down "near the exit door from the interior of the bus station . . . and said he was going to go get a ticket." ECF No. 1, PageID.3-4. The officers attempted to talk to Defendant as he walked to the ticket counter, but Defendant "kept repeating the same question and was looking all around the bus station." Id. at PageID.4. Defendant did not respond to the officers' questions as to why he left his bag by the door and why he needed a ticket when the officers could see he already had one in his hand. Id. According to the officers, Defendant appeared nervous and evasive, behavior they found "consistent with subjects who are attempting to traffic narcotics when they come in contact with law enforcement." Id.

At that point the officers made the decision to "detain" Defendant by placing him in handcuffs and asked him whether he had any illegal narcotics in his bag. ECF No. 1, PageID.4. Defendant responded that he had "approximately 5 pounds of Marijuana." Id. The officers then moved Defendant to a nonpublic area of the Station used by police officers for surveillance, interrogations, searches, and detention of suspects and arrestees. ECF No. 36, PageID.183, PageID.195-97.

After Defendant was handcuffed and moved to the nonpublic area, MSP Trooper Ben Sonstrom retrieved a narcotics canine stationed at the scene to conduct a sniff of the bag. Id. at PageID.216. The dog positively alerted to the presence of narcotics. Id. at PageID.216-17. Sonstrom proceeded to search Defendant's bag and found a total of 2,156 grams of methamphetamine and 285 grams of fentanyl. Id. at PageID.225-26; ECF No. 1, PageID.5.

Following the search, Defendant was arrested and transported to the MSP Detroit Detachment. There, he was read his Miranda rights and interrogated. ECF No. 1, PageID.11. During this interrogation, Defendant "admitted to transporting illegal substances in exchange for clearance of $25,000 in gambling debt for a family member." Id. at PageID.11-12. Defendant further stated that he intended to transport the drugs to Columbus, Ohio, despite being restricted from traveling outside of Michigan by his probation for a weapons offense. Id. at PageID.12. Defendant also disclosed that he had "a prior felony drug case out of state" and acknowledged that "it was wrong to try to traffic illegal substances." Id.

Defendant contends that the officers unlawfully stopped him and searched his bag. As such, Defendant moves to suppress evidence of the drugs obtained from the officers' search and the statements made during the subsequent custodial interrogation as fruits of an unconstitutional search and seizure.

The Court held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress on December 20, 2022. At the hearing, the Government presented testimony from three officers involved in detaining Defendant and searching his bag: FBI Detective Matthew Kiser, FBI Special Agent Bradley Cioma, and MSP Trooper Ben Sonstrom. While the officers provided detailed accounts of their interdiction operation and interactions with Defendant, neither party meaningfully addressed whether Defendant's initial detention escalated into an arrest requiring probable cause or the legality of the warrantless search of Defendant's bag. Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on these two issues. The parties completed supplemental briefing on February 17, 2023.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals and their belongings from "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen." United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200, 122 S.Ct. 2105, 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002). Furthermore, "[s]o long as a reasonable person would feel free 'to disregard the police and go about his business,' " such an encounter is considered "consensual" and does not require any reasonable suspicion. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (quoting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 628, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991)).

But when officers engage in non-consensual conduct that "stop[s] short of something called a 'technical arrest' or 'full-blown search,' "—that is, when they conduct what is commonly called a "stop-and-frisk"—they may only do so if they can "point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 18, 20-21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). While an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' " will not suffice, an officer may draw reasonable inferences "from the facts in light of his experience" to demonstrate the reasonableness of a stop. Id. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868. A court must also assess the "whole picture" to determine whether "the detaining officers . . . have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). Indeed, even "innocent conduct" viewed in the totality of circumstances can generate reasonable suspicion. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002).

In moving for suppression of evidence, the defendant bears "the burdens of production and persuasion." United States v. Chaar, 137 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1998). Specifically, the defendant must demonstrate that the Government violated his constitutional rights in conducting a search or seizure. See United States v. Rodriguez-Suazo, 346 F.3d 637, 643 (6th Cir. 2003). But ultimately, the Government bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that its search or seizure was reasonable. See United States v. Winters, 782 F.3d 289, 295 (6th Cir. 2015); United States v. Baldwin, 114 F. App'x 675, 681 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 177, 177 n.14, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Whether Defendant Was Seized by the Officers

As a threshold matter, the Court must resolve whether Defendant was subject to a seizure triggering Fourth Amendment protections. The Government contends that when the officers first approached Defendant at the Station, they initiated a "consensual encounter," meaning that the officers did not need any level of suspicion because Defendant was not seized at all. Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 33, PageID.144. Defendant argues that this initial interaction must be supported by...