United States v. Williams

669 F.Supp.3d 8

UNITED STATES of America v. Antonio Emory WILLIAMS, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 22-332 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

Signed April 11, 2023

Colin Joseph Cloherty, Connor Mullin, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ-USAO, Washington, DC, for United States of America.

Diane Aimee Shrewsbury, Public Defender, Mary Manning Petras, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DENYING DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS TANGIBLE EVIDENCE

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In October 2022, Defendant Antonio Emory Williams was indicted by a grand jury of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition after having previously been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. See Indictment at 1, ECF No. 1. The charge against Mr. Williams arose from his arrest at the Hopkins Apartments in Washington, D.C. on September 20, 2022, during which a police officer searched a backpack that contained a firearm, ammunition, and Mr. Williams's photo identification. See Gov't's Mem. Supp. Pretrial Detention at 1-2, ECF No. 3. Mr. Williams now brings an amended motion to suppress the tangible evidence seized on September 20, 2022. See Def.'s Am. Mot. to Suppress Tangible Evid. ("Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 17.¹ For the reasons detailed below, the Court denies Mr. Williams's amended motion to suppress.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 20, 2022, officers with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia ("MPD") observed Mr. Williams standing outside of an entrance to the Hopkins Apartments, see Gov't's Mem. Supp. Pretrial Detention at 1, a D.C. Housing Authority ("DCHA") public housing complex in Southeast Washington, D.C., see Gov't's Opp'n to Mot. to Suppress Tangible Evid. ("Gov't's Opp'n") at 1, ECF No. 18. According to the Government, one of the MPD officers, Officer Ivens Thermidor, recognized Mr. Williams because he had arrested Mr. Williams at the Hopkins Apartments for the charge of carrying a pistol without a license in 2021. See id. at 1-2. Officer Thermidor also believed that Mr. Williams had been barred from the Hopkins Apartments. See id. at 2. Mr. Williams had been the subject of a DCHA Bar Notice, issued in November 2019, that prohibited Mr. Williams from entering the "[e]ntire property" and the "[e]ntire block" of the Hopkins Apartments for five years. Ex. 2 to Gov't's Opp'n.²

After following Mr. Williams into the Hopkins Apartments, the MPD officers stopped and handcuffed Mr. Williams in a hallway on the second floor. See Def.'s Mot. at 1-2. Mr. Williams had been holding a black grocery bag that he dropped onto the ground. See id. at 2. Mr. Williams stated that the black grocery bag contained marijuana. See Ex. 1 to Gov't's Opp'n at 2:36-2:37; id. at 2:41-2:42. Mr. Williams also had in his possession three oxycodone pills. See Gov't's Opp'n at 5. Shortly after the officers detained Mr. Williams on the second floor, one of the officers, Officer Joseph Solem, found an unattended backpack in the third floor hallway. See Def.'s Mot. at 2; Gov't's Opp'n at 3. As Officer Solem walked up the stairwell and approached the backpack, he asked Mr. Williams, "Is this your backpack right here?" Ex. 1 to Gov't's Opp'n at 3:04-3:05. Mr. Williams replied, "Nah." Id. at 3:06. Officer Thermidor then said, "Check it out, check it out. If it's not his, we can check it." Id. at 3:08-3:11. Officer Brattain, who was detaining Mr. Williams, also said in response to Mr. Williams, "It's not? That's abandoned property then." Id. at 3:09-3:12. Mr. Williams then asked, "What you mean? What is you talking about, huh? What is you talking about? What is y'all doing?" Id. at 3:13-3:18. Officer Thermidor then said, "You said that's not yours, right?" Id. at 3:18-3:19. Officer Brattain also said, "You said it's not your backpack." Id. at 3:19-3:20. At the same time, Mr. Williams reiterated, "What is y'all talking, what is y'all doing with my stuff?" Id. at 3:21-3:23. As he asked what the officers were doing "with [his] stuff," he tried to move toward the stairwell, but was restrained from doing so by Officers Thermidor and Brattain. See id. Appearing to gesture toward the black grocery bag on the ground, Mr. Williams then also asked the officers, "Why is you messing with my stuff? What is you doing?" Id. at 3:24-3:26.

As this was occurring, Officer Solem, without a warrant, opened one pocket of the backpack and rifled through its contents. See Ex. 1 to Def.'s Mot. at 00:17-00:28; Def.'s Mot. at 2. When Officer Solem brought the backpack down from the third floor and into Mr. Williams's view, Officer Solem asked, "You said this is yours?" Ex. 1 to Def.'s Mot. at 00:41-00:42. Officer Brattain then interjected, "No, no. No. No, he said it's not his." Ex. 1 to Gov't's Opp'n at 3:41-3:46. Officer Solem then opened the backpack again after placing it on the stairwell next to the second floor hallway. See Ex. 1 to Def.'s Mot. at 00:50-00:54. As Officer Solem opened the backpack, Mr. Williams then shouted again, "What you doing?" Ex. 1 to Gov't's Opp'n at 3:50-3:51. He also again moved toward the stairwell toward Officer Solem and the backpack, but was restrained. See id. As Mr. Williams shouted for someone named "Charlene" and yelled that the officers were "violating" him, Officer Thermidor went to the backpack, rifled through the contents of the open pockets, and opened an additional pocket that contained a gun. Ex. 1 to Gov't's Opp'n at 3:52-4:47. The backpack contained Mr. Williams's photo identification and "a loaded Glock 33 semi-automatic firearm with one round in the chamber and 19 rounds in a high-capacity magazine capable of receiving 22 rounds." Gov't's Opp'n at 4. Per the Government, "[t]he firearm included a Giggle switch that [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has since confirmed rendered the firearm fully-automatic." Id. at 5.

As the officers stood outside with Mr. Williams, Officer Thermidor asked another officer, "Did we get anything on the return yet?" Ex. 1 to Gov't's Opp'n at 7:08-7:09. After an officer responded, Officer Thermidor then appears to have said, "[H]e bars from here anyway." Id. at 7:16-7:17. After an exchange with Officer Thermidor about what he meant by that statement, Mr. Williams asked, "But still, why is you messing with me?" Id. at 7:18-7:21. Officer Thermidor replied, "You're barred from here." Id. at 7:22. Mr. Williams responded, "I'm not barred . . . ." Id. at 7:23. Officer Thermidor then said, "Yeah, for the gun charge." Id. at 7:23-7:25. Later, Officer Thermidor stated to another officer, "I got him for [unintelligible] here, same spot . . . . No, contact the court. I think the judge bar him from this location . . . ." Id. at 8:52-9:12; see also Ex. 4 to Def.'s Mot. A Weapon Recovery Information Intake Form submitted by Officer Thermidor stated that the gun at issue in this case was recovered as a result of a "[s]earch incident to arrest . . . from the defendant backpack pocket after he was placed under arrest for unlawful entry." Ex. 5 to Def.'s Mot. at 1.

Mr. Williams was charged by complaint in D.C. Superior Court in September 2022, with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (Prior Conviction). See Gov't's Mem. Supp. Pretrial Detention at 2. He was then indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in October 2022 on one count of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition by a Person Convicted of a Crime Punishable by Imprisonment for a Term Exceeding One Year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See Indictment at 1. Mr. Williams now brings an amended motion to suppress the tangible evidence seized—namely, the marijuana, oxycodone pills, and the contents of the backpack, including the firearm—as part of his arrest on September 20, 2022. See generally Def.'s Mot. Following an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Williams's motion on January 19, 2023, the parties submitted supplemental briefs to the Court. See generally Def.'s Suppl. Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Suppress Tangible Evid. ("Def.'s Suppl. Br."), ECF No. 27; Gov't's Suppl. Br., ECF No. 28; Def.'s Resp. to Gov't's Suppl. Br. ("Def.'s Resp."), ECF No. 29.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

"In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment," United States v. Edmonds, 240 F.3d 55, 59 (D.C. Cir. 2001), and set forth "that an officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot," Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000). The officer must, however, "be able to articulate more than an 'inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch' of criminal activity." Id. at 123-24, 120 S.Ct. 673 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868) (cleaned up). "[G]enerally, '[a] Terry stop must (1) last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of a stop and (2) employ the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion.' " United States v. Devaugh, 422 F. Supp. 3d 104, 114 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting United States v. Smith, 373 F. Supp. 3d 223, 238 (D.D.C. 2019)) (cleaned up). Thus, "a stop that is unduly prolonged or intrusive transforms from an investigative stop into an arrest requiring probable cause." Hall v. District of Columbia, 867 F.3d 138, 153 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Even so, "the use of handcuffs during a Terry stop does not automatically convert it into an arrest since 'the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.' " Hargraves v. District of Columbia, 134 F. Supp. 3d 68, 82 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Graham v....