United States v. Walker

ORDER

C.J. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Seizure of Defendant

B. Use of Force

C. Handcuffing Defendant

D. Evaluation of the Informant Tip

E. The Appropriate Standard

F. Reliance on Navarette and Manes

V. CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on defendant's Motion to Suppress, in which defendant requested a hearing. (Doc. 28). The government timely filed a resistance. (Doc. 36). The Court referred defendant's motion to the Honorable Mark A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge, for Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). On April 18, 2023, Judge Roberts held a hearing on the motion. (Doc. 37). On May 15, 2023, Judge Roberts recommended that the Court deny defendant's motion to suppress. (Doc. 38). Defendant objected to Judge Roberts' R&R. (Doc. 42). For the following reasons, the Court sustains in part and overrules in part defendant's objections, adopts Judge Roberts' R&R, and denies defendant's Motion to Suppress.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court reviews Judge Roberts' R&R under the statutory standards found in Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1):

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions

See also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) (stating identical requirements). While examining these statutory standards, the United States Supreme Court explained:

Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). Thus, a district court may review de novo any issue in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation at any time. Id. If a party

files an objection to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must review the objected portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of an objection, the district court is not required “to give any more consideration to the magistrate [judge]'s report than the court considers appropriate.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[1]

On October 5, 2022, the Dubuque County, Iowa law enforcement dispatcher service (sometimes “dispatch”) informed Sergeant Adam Williams that it had received an anonymous call with information that an individual would be arriving in Dubuque, Iowa, by bus transporting guns and drugs.^[2] (Williams Hr'g Test. at 3). Specifically, the anonymous caller told the dispatcher that defendant would be on the 10:30 a.m. bus from Chicago, Illinois to Dubuque. The caller stated that defendant would be transporting guns and drugs. According to the caller, when defendant arrived in Dubuque, he would take an Uber from the bus station to a residence on East 22nd Street. (Id. at 4). While the caller did not reveal his name to the dispatcher, the dispatcher had access to the caller's telephone number, which was also relayed to Sergeant Williams.

Sergeant Williams was able to identify the caller through law enforcement records showing the caller's telephone number. Sergeant Williams phoned the caller to speak with him and receive firsthand the information previously provided to the dispatcher. (Id.). Sergeant Williams recognized the caller's name and was familiar with the caller

based on personal interaction with the caller and the caller's criminal history, which included drug possession, domestic assaults, firearms offenses, and a current investigation involving human trafficking. (Id. at 5, 16). When he spoke with the caller, Sergeant Williams testified that he recognized the caller's voice based on prior interactions with the caller. The caller also recognized Sergeant Williams. They had a short back-and-forth conversation that confirmed that they knew each other. (Id. at 5).

The caller relayed nearly identical information to Sergeant Williams as he had earlier reported to the dispatcher. Specifically, the caller told Sergeant Williams that the caller had known defendant for a long time and considered him to be like a brother. The caller knew defendant's residence and provided its address on East 22nd Street in Dubuque. The caller stated that defendant had a drug problem and used PCP. The caller indicated that he had tried several times to get defendant to change his ways and stop using drugs, but his attempts had failed, and he believed that the only way for defendant to change was for him to be arrested. The caller also told Sergeant Williams that defendant would be arriving in Dubuque on the 10:30 a.m. Trailways bus and defendant would be transporting guns and drugs.^[3] According to the caller, once defendant arrived in Dubuque, he would take an Uber to his residence along with the guns and drugs. The caller also gave Sergeant Williams a description of defendant.^[4]

(Id. at 6-7). Additionally, the caller told Sergeant Williams that he knew defendant would be on the bus with guns and drugs because he learned this information directly from defendant.^[5] (Id. at 9).

After speaking with the caller, Sergeant Williams attempted to verify the information that the caller provided. First, Sergeant Williams called the Trailways bus office in Dubuque and inquired whether defendant was on the October 5, 2022 Trailways bus from Chicago to Dubuque. The Trailways agent told Sergeant Williams that defendant had purchased a ticket from Chicago to Dubuque and was scheduled to arrive between 11:00 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. on October 5, 2022. However, the Trailways agent stated that he could not verify that defendant actually boarded the bus. Sergeant Williams also verified defendant's residence through law enforcement records. Specifically, Sergeant Williams learned that there had been more than one incident involving defendant at the address the caller gave as defendant's residence. (Id. at 8). One of the incidents involved an ambulance call to the residence. According to the dispatch notes, the ambulance personnel believed defendant was under the influence of PCP. (Id. at 8, 16-18). Further, Sergeant Williams ran defendant's criminal history, which included convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, armed robbery, domestic assault, drug offenses, and being an armed habitual criminal. Defendant also had a non-extraditable warrant from Indiana which would not provide a basis for police to arrest him in Dubuque. (Id. at 9, 52-53). A summary of the factual information and the status of verification at the time of the stop may be helpful.

Information Supplied by Caller	Verification by Law Enforcement
Tony Walker is on a Trailways bus from Chicago to Dubuque	Sgt. Williams verified a ticket was purchased by defendant. His presence on the bus was verified before defendant was seized.
Bus to arrive at 10:30 a.m. in Dubuque	The expected time was accurate, but a stop in Davenport delayed it.
Carrying guns and drugs	Not verified. Obtaining this information was, of course, the purpose of the stop and defendant's possession of a firearm came after the stop. However, law enforcement did verify prior convictions that would make it illegal for defendant to possess a firearm.
Taking an Uber to his residence	Not verified. Defendant was, however, walking in the direction of the reported residence.
Residence at specific address in Dubuque	An ambulance was called to the specific address where defendant was encountered in the prior month.
Defendant's description	The description matched pictures obtained by law enforcement.
Known Defendant for a long time, like a brother	Not verified.
Needs to be arrested	This subjective assessment was not verified but is discussed below in more detail.
Defendant has a PCP problem	The above-referenced ambulance call was related to defendant's suspected PCP use.

As defendant's counsel pointed out during cross-examination, there were aspects of the caller's report that were not verified, or could not be verified, which may have cast some suspicion on the veracity of the report. For example, the caller had a long and troubling criminal history (see Def. Exhibits D-1 to D-11) and was the subject of an on-going human trafficking investigation. Sergeant Williams knew something of the caller's criminal history but chose not to run it, even though he could have done so in about 15 minutes. The caller did not know the number or types of guns, or the types of drugs defendant was believed to be carrying.

Defendant also pointed out certain limitations on the facts Sergeant Williams considered to have been verified. For example, the reported PCP use by defendant was from a dispatcher's note of what was suspected by ambulance personnel. Sergeant Williams did not determine when the caller learned the information (so he could not

determine if it was dated), how the information was communicated, or obtain defendant's phone number from the caller.

Defendant also pointed out reasons to be suspicious of the caller's motives. For...