United States v. Williams

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. TAVARIS CHAVEZ WILLIAMS, Defendant.

1:14-cr-321-WSD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

July 21, 2015

OPINION AND ORDER

The matter is before the Court on Defendant Tavaris Williams' ("Defendant") Objections [36] to Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [33]. The R&R considers Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements [10] and Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements [12], in which Defendant seeks to suppress evidence and statements on the grounds that his constitutional rights to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures and against self-incrimination were violated. The Magistrate Judge, having conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 29, 2014 (the "Evidentiary Hearing"), recommends that Defendant's Motions be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant is charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), and possession of a stolen firearm,in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). The charges arise from the discovery of a firearm in Defendant's possession on April 23, 2014.¹

On April 23, 2014, Atlanta Police Officers Caleb Munson and Jones responded to a 911 dispatched call about conduct at 583 Boulevard. Officer Munson is assigned to the Zone 6 Boulevard Crime Suppression Unit that polices in the Boulevard and Parkway areas (the "Boulevard Area"). Wingate Properties own a number of apartment buildings in the Boulevard Area, including a building located at 583 Boulevard (the "583 Building"). The 583 Building is a two-story structure. In the middle of the building is an entrance and stairs from which to access long interior hallways on either side of the stairwell. Individual apartments are accessed from the interior hallways. There are significant law enforcement problems at Building 583, which Officer Munson described:

[W]e've had a lot of problem with drugs. Like, a lot of narcotic problems; violent crimes right there. A lot of fights, disputes over drugs. We've actually, I think, had some shootings at that building or right at that block.

(Tr. of Hr'g [23] at 5). In responding to the call about Building 583, Officer Munson stated:

And the call also came up that you can come through the front or the back door, because pertaining to that area, they usually run from us in the hallways. And there is a lot of known gambling and drugs in the hallways.

(Id. at 6). Officer Munson noted there are signs above doorways of the Wingate apartment buildings that say, "No gambling, no drinking, no drugs." (Id. at 4).

In dispatching Officers Munson and Jones, the dispatcher reported there were five (5) males smoking drugs in the hallway of a building the 583 Building. (Id. at 6). Officers Munson and Jones went to the building and parked outside, where they could see smoke coming from the front entrance. (Id. at 7). They entered through the front door of the building. As they opened the door, smoke was expelled from the building. Once inside, they saw five (5) males in the hallway, including one sitting on the stairs. When asked what they were doing, one of the males stated: "we're smoking." (Id. at 9). Officer Munson described the smoke in the hallway as very, very thick. (Id.). He also stated that he saw discarded tobacco pieces from tobacco products which are commonly stuffed with marijuana to be smoked, and he saw loose marijuana on the ground and on the clothes of some of the individuals in the hallway. (Id. at 32). Based on what they observed before and after entering Building 583, and their encounter with theindividuals who were smoking, Officer Munson first detained the individual he expected to run, and then detained Defendant. (Id. at 11).

The seated individual and Defendant were handcuffed first, and then the other three individuals were handcuffed. After the individuals were detained, Officer Munson proceeded to engage in the process of patting them down. (Id. at 12). As Officer Munson approached Defendant² to pat him down, he asked Defendant if he had "anything illegal" on him. Defendant responded, "I have a pistol in my right front pocket." (Id. at 12, 39). Officer Munson stated that he did not see a gun, or the outline of a gun, and before Defendant's statement, he did not have reason to believe Defendant had a gun. (Id. at 44). After Defendant disclosed he had a gun on him, Officer Munson removed a pistol from Defendant's right cargo pants pocket. (Id. at 12). Officer Munson asked Defendant if he was a convicted felon. Defendant stated that he was and stated that he had just gotten out of prison. (Id. at 13). As they were leaving Building 583, Officer Munson advised Defendant and the others in the group that they were under arrest for criminal trespass because "they were not supposed to be on the property, and they were in there for unlawful purposes with the marijuana, paraphernalia and everything." (Id. at 14).

After his Miranda rights were read to him, Defendant stated he wanted to speak with Officer Munson. Defendant stated that the pistol that was in his pocket, "he bought from somebody on a Marta [sic] train, or a bus, for $300, in Decatur" (the "MARTA Statement"). (Id. at 17).

On August 28, 2014, after Defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury on firearm charges, Kenneth Fisher, an Atlanta Police Officer assigned to a federal task force ("Officer Fisher"), met with Defendant to interview him. (Id. at 66 & Def's Ex. 15). The interview was recorded and the first few minutes focused on Defendant's biographical and emergency contact information. (Id. at 70-71). Officer Fisher showed Defendant the warrant that had been issued for his arrest after he was indicted on federal charges. (Id. at 68). Defendant asked about his designation in the warrant as an "armed career criminal." (Id. & Def's Ex. 15 at 06:00-06:05). Officer Fisher told Defendant he could not respond to Defendant's question because Defendant had not been read his Miranda rights. Defendant asked again about the armed career criminal designation and said he wanted to talk about it. Defendant thereafter was read his Miranda rights and he agreed to talk. (Id. at 60-61). Defendant stated that the gun belonged to a friend of his, and he "just had it," that he bought the gun for a friend named Joe and that hekept the gun because Joe never paid him for it (the "Joe Statement"). (Def's Ex. 15 at 14:15-14:44; 19:10-19:30; 25:36-25:44).

On September 12, 2014, Defendant filed his Motion to Suppress Statements [10] and Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements [12]. Defendant argues that he was seized and searched without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in violation of the Fourth Amendment, was arrested without probable cause, and that any statement Defendant made or evidence that was found on him following his alleged unconstitutional detention or arrest, is required to be suppressed. Defendant also argued that his statements were made in violation of his rights under Miranda. In her R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant's Motions be denied, including on the ground that Defendant's detention or arrest was not in violation of his Fourth Amendment or other claimed constitutional right.

On March 26, 2015, Defendant filed his Objections to the R&R. In his Objections, Defendant notes that his original Response [24] and Reply [32] in support of his Motions "set[] forth his factual arguments and the legal authority supporting them" and he wholesale "incorporates by reference those arguments and [wholesale] objects to the Magistrate's ruling on those grounds." (Obj. at 3). Defendant then offers a list of "Specific Objections," which generally point outfacts that were not included in the R&R. (Id. at 4-5). Defendant objects to the R&R, pointing out:

1. Details about the information communicated in the original 911 call that resulted in Officer Munson's and Jones' dispatch to Building 853 and physical details regarding the apartment building location and configuration.

2. Details about the location of the males in the hallway and that one of the five males encountered was a juvenile that had been arrested previously.

3. That Officer Munson did not try to identify the anonymous caller who reported to 911 that the males were using drugs in the hallway.

4. Officer Munson did not see any of the males in the hallway with a marijuana joint in their hands and did not see a cigarette, cigar, or other form of tobacco or paraphernalia.

5. Officer Munson did not believe that any of the males "lived [at the apartment building]" and did "not know who lived in the units that connected to that foyer" and did not ask Defendant "whether he lived there or had a reason to be there."

(Id.). Within the Specific Objections, Defendant also states that Officer Munson's testimony that he smelled raw marijuana was "incredible if there was burning marijuana streaming from under the door and thick smoke in the foyer to which he also testified." (Id. at 5).

In addition to these Specific Objections, Defendant reiterates the arguments he made previously, stating his objection to the Magistrate Judge's finding that he was lawfully detained in the apartment hallway on April 23, 2014, and the evidence seized from, and the statements made by, Defendant after the detentionare admissible. He objects also to the alternative finding in the R&R that Defendant was arrested by Officer Munson in the hallway of Building 583, and thus was lawfully searched incident to arrest. He objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the statements he made at Building 583 and during the interview with Officer Fisher are admissible. Defendant argues the statements he made were derived from his unconstitutional detention or arrest and thus are required to be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Defendant also argues that his statement to Officer Fisher was obtained in violation of Miranda.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

After...