United States v. Washington

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ALMALIK WASHINGTON, Defendant.

3:20-CR-00047

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

April 22, 2021

(JUDGE MARIANI)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Presently before the Court is Defendant Almalik Washington's "Motion to Suppress Stop and Search of Vehicle" (Doc. 52). Defendant is charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), Possession of a Firearm with Altered Serial Numbers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), and Possession of a Controlled Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). (Doc. 1). The present Motion seeks to suppress all evidence recovered as a result of a roadside car search, including the firearm and the alleged marijuana. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

On the evening of December 3, 2019, Pennsylvania State Trooper Joseph P. Urban was sitting perpendicular to Interstate 80 on a cross-over at mile marker 286 monitoring westbound traffic. (Feb. 12, 2021 Hr'g Tr., Doc. 67 at 6:14-17). At the time, Trooper Urban was assigned to the Pennsylvania State Police Safe Highways Initiative through Effective Law Enforcement and Detection, or SHIELD Unit. (Id. at 4:16-20). Through that role in the SHIELD Unit, Trooper Urban obtained training in criminal interdiction on the highway, which "covered pre-stop indicators, looking for different driving behaviors, human behavior, thorough searches of vehicles, hidden compartments . . . every aspect of criminal interdiction." (Id. at 4:23-25; 5:10-14).

While monitoring traffic on the evening of December 3, 2019, Trooper Urban observed a vehicle pass him driving in the left lane. (Id. at 6:18-21). After the vehicle was about two to three-tenths of a mile past him down the road, the driver hit the brakes for a prolonged period of time. (Id). Trooper Urban also observed that the vehicle was driving in the left lane with no other vehicles around, and the vehicle was not actively passing another vehicle, exiting on the left, or allowing cars to merge. (Id. at 7:12-18).

After seeing that driving behavior, Trooper Urban left his stationary position and entered the flow of traffic. (Id. at 7:7-9). Trooper Urban eventually caught up to the vehicle and conducted a traffic stop for a violation of Pennsylvania Vehicle Code § 3313(d)(1), traveling in the left lane when the right lane was readily available. (Id. at 7:8-18).

After both vehicles stopped, Trooper Urban approached Defendant's vehicle on the passenger side, introduced himself, explained that the stop was being recorded, and asked Defendant for his driver's license, registration, and insurance information. (Id. at 8:23-25, 9:1-4). Upon asking for that information, Trooper Urban observed that Defendant had his license already in his hand. (Id. at 9:4-5). He also noted that Defendant was "slightly tiltedagainst his driver's door, his eyebrows were raised, his eyes were very wide and his mouth was open" during the interaction. (Id. at 9:5-8).

During this initial conversation, Trooper Urban explained to Defendant why he pulled him over:

Trooper Urban: In Pennsylvania on the interstate, you can drive in the left lane if you're actively passing, exiting on the left, or letting cars merge on, okay? When you passed me back there, the right lane was wide open, you're just cruising in the left lane. On top of it, man, you hit your brakes so hard, if someone was behind you . . .

Defendant: Yeah.

TU: . . . Dude they might have drove right through you.

D: Yeah. I didn't, I didn't know . . . [inaudible].

TU: It's all good man, as long as your license is good and everything makes sense I'll probably give you a warning.

(Gov't. Ex. 4, MVR Video - Full, at 00:02:05-00:02:27).

Trooper Urban then asked Defendant where he was headed. (Hr'g Tr., at 10:9). Trooper Urban is heard on the audio portion of the Mobile Video Recorder ("MVR") further questioning Defendant as follows:

TU: Where you off to today?

D: I'm going to my hotel room.

TU: Oh yeah? Where abouts?

D: In...ah...in Wilkes-Barre.

TU: Oh, okay.

D: Yeah.

TU: What hotel are you staying at?

D: I'm at the Days Inn.

TU: Days Inn?

D: Yeah.

TU: For what reason are you going there?

D: For work.

TU: Oh, what do you do?

D: Environmental work.

TU: Oh really?

D: Yeah.

TU: Who do you work for?

D: ROI. It's in Jersey though.

TU: What's the name?

D: ROI. Staffing.

TU: Oh, okay. What kind of work do you do?

D: Environmental work. Cleaning like oil spills, and tank cleaning, and stuff like that.

TU: Are you working anywhere in particular in Wilkes-Barre, or?

D: Nah, we're actually working in ... uh ... [snaps fingers] ... Scranton.

Scranton.

TU: Okay.

D: Yeah.

TU: Alright, good deal.

D: But the hotel is in Wilkes-Barre though.

TU: License good, everything good?

D: Yeah, everything is good. Everything is good. No problems.

TU: Sounds good. Sit tight. I'll be right with you.

(Gov't. Ex. 4, MVR Video - Full, at 00:02:29-00:03:25).

During his testimony, Trooper Urban noted that Defendant provided "a very vague answer" when asked where he was heading, never made eye contact, paused before answering, and was looking up in the air while answering questions. (Hr'g Tr., at 10:8-12). Trooper Urban also learned that Defendant was staying at the Days Inn hotel in Wilkes-Barre but working in Scranton. (Id. at 10:13-15). Through his knowledge of the area, Trooper Urban believed that the Days Inn was located on Kidder Street. (Id. at 11:17-20). Based on his "[l]aw enforcement experience, as well as just being an informed citizen reading the news," Trooper Urban said he was familiar with that hotel and several others in the area being "known for sales of narcotics and prostitution." (Id. at 11:23-25, 12:1).

As Trooper Urban was walking back to his vehicle to check Defendant's license, he is heard on the MVR stating that he believed Defendant was "clearly lying." (MVR, at00:03:30). Once back in his patrol car, Trooper Urban is heard on the MVR questioning Defendant's answers, stating to himself: "environmental work . . . Days Inn . . . he doesn't know where he's working." (MVR, at 00:03:37-00:03:46).

Trooper Urban testified that he then checked Defendant's license and registration, at which point he learned that Defendant was from Elizabeth, New Jersey. (Hr'g Tr., at 15:2-7). At about six minutes into the stop, Trooper Urban is heard on the MVR remarking that Defendant has a "two-page criminal history," noting "multiple felony convictions for possession with intent to deliver heroin." (MVR, at 00:05:58-00:06:09). Trooper Urban testified that after learning of Defendant's criminal history, "[b]ased off of all the indicators I observed from his driving behavior, all the way through the criminal history, I decided to contact another trooper for backup, as I was going to ask him for consent to search his vehicle." (Hr'g Tr., at 17:14-17). Thereafter, Trooper Urban contacted State Trooper Richard Weinstock for backup. (Id. at 17:15-19).

When Trooper Weinstock arrived, Trooper Urban approached Defendant's vehicle again and asked him to exit to the rear, where he performed a pat down search of Defendant. (Hr'g Tr., at 18:1-2; MVR, at 00:12:22). Trooper Urban also asked Defendant further questions about his hotel location, where he was coming from, and where he was going. (MVR, at 00:12:32). Trooper Urban informed Defendant that he was going to give him a warning about the left lane traffic violation. (Id. at 00:12:50). Trooper Urban then asked Defendant for consent to search his vehicle, and Defendant refused. (Id. at00:13:08). At that time, Trooper Urban informed Defendant that he would be contacting a Canine Unit. (Id. at 00:14:10). While waiting for the Canine Unit to arrive, Trooper Urban, Trooper Weinstock and Defendant sat in Trooper Urban's vehicle. (Id. at 00:18:31).

The Canine Unit, which consisted of Corporal Anthony Doblovasky and Drug Detection Canine Micho, arrived approximately forty-five minutes into the traffic stop. (Id. at 00:44:58). Upon arrival, Corporal Doblovasky and Trooper Urban discussed the basis for Trooper Urban's reasonable suspicion to search Defendant's vehicle. Based on this conversation, Corporal Doblovoksy determined that Canine Micho would be deployed. (Hr'g Tr., at 86:18-24, 87:1-11).

Corporal Doblovasky and Canine Micho performed an exterior search beginning at the front of the vehicle. (Id. at 88:2-6). On the first pass, Corporal Doblovasky observed Canine Micho's alert behavior at the driver side door of the vehicle. (Id. at 88:17-19; 89:22-24). As they continued the search, Canine Micho exhibited alert behavior again at the front passenger side door by jumping up on the window. (Id. at 88: 22-24). Canine Micho then stopped, pointed, and stared at the front driver's side window, which Corporal Doblovasky identified as Canine Micho's indication of the presence of drugs. (Id. at 88:23-25, 89:1-3, 91:23-25).

After the exterior search, Corporal Doblovasky informed Defendant that Canine Micho alerted his vehicle and that they would conduct a search of his vehicle. (MVR, at 00:50:35). During the interior search of Defendant's vehicle, Corporal Doblovasky andTrooper Urban seized a High Point .22 caliber revolver loaded with nine rounds of ammunition from a pair of pants inside a backpack on the floor of the rear passenger seat. (Gov.'s Ex. 2, Trooper Urban Report, at 1). Corporal Doblovasky and Trooper Urban also identified a "green vegetable matter" on top of the dash and in the center console area of the vehicle. (Hr'g Tr., at 21:7-8). Trooper Urban and Corporal Doblovasky identified this substance as marijuana shake. (Id. at 21:8-9, 109:19-20).

On February 25, 2020, a Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), Possession of a Firearm with Altered Serial Numbers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), and Possession of a Controlled Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a...