United States v. Williams

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. YACUB E. WILLIAMS, Defendant.

No. 21-00035-01-CR-W-BP

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

February 4, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

W. BRIAN GADDY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is currently before the Court on Defendant Yacub Williams's Motion to Suppress Evidence filed October 6 2021. Doc. 17. The Government filed Suggestions in Opposition on October 27, 2021. Doc. 20. Defendant did not file a reply and the time for doing so has passed. L.R. 7(c)(3). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Defendant's Motion to Suppress be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2021, the grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant Williams with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Doc. 1. Defendant's motion seeks to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle he had been driving but abandoned when he fled law enforcement on foot. Doc. 17. He contends the officers lacked probable cause or valid consent to search the vehicle. Id. at 2-4.

On November 17, 2021, the undersigned held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress. Mr. Williams was present and represented by Assistant Federal Public Defender Ronna Holloman-Hughes. The Government was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Mike Green. At the evidentiary hearing, three witnesses testified: (1) Task Force Officer Chance Cooper, (2) Deputy United States Marshal Micheal Stokes, and (3) Cortney Jones. Additionally, nineteen (19) exhibits were admitted into evidence. See Docs. 28-29.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing, the undersigned submits the following:

1. Chance Cooper, an officer with nine years' experience in law enforcement, has worked for the Jackson County Sheriff's Office for the last five years. Tr. at 4.^[1] He is currently assigned to the United States Marshals Midwest Violent Fugitive Task Force, which is responsible for locating and apprehending fugitives. Tr. at 4.

2. In December 2019, Officer Cooper offered to assist Deputy United States Marshal Micheal Stokes with a fugitive investigation of Defendant. Tr. at 4-5. Deputy Stokes has worked with the United States Marshals Service for nineteen years. Tr. at 41. Since 2015, he has served as the supervisor of the enforcement section, which is responsible for enforcing the federal court's orders, including serving arrest warrants. Tr. at 41-42.

3. Officer Cooper and Deputy Stokes learned there was a supervised release violation arrest warrant issued for Defendant in early December 2019.^[2] Tr. at 5-6, 42-43; Gov't Ex. 1. The warrant identified Defendant's address as 8033 88th Street, Kansas City, Missouri (the “residence”). Tr. at 7; Gov't Ex. 1. Officer Cooper believed Defendant's girlfriend, Cortney Jones, owned the residence. Tr. at 9, 78.

4. Prior to December 27, 2019, Officer Cooper conducted covert surveillance of the residence on at least two occasions. Tr. at 7-8. The residence was located among other single-family dwellings on a street with infrequent traffic. Tr. at 9. During both instances of surveillance, Officer Cooper observed Defendant exit the residence, enter a white Ford Fusion, leave, and then return a short time later. Tr. at 7-8, 44.

5. On December 27, 2019, Officer Cooper assembled an arrest team to apprehend Defendant. Tr. at 8. He ensured sufficient officers were in the area to cover all potential exits and/or to safely handle Defendant's arrest. Tr. at 8. He intended to arrest Defendant outside the residence to minimize or negate exposure to any children who he believed could be present in the residence. Tr. at 8-9.

6. Law enforcement began their surveillance around 7:00 a.m. on December 27, 2019. Tr. at 9. Officer Cooper was positioned to the west, around a blind curve, where he was able to observe the front of the residence. Tr. at 9-10. Deputy Stokes was positioned slightly southwest and behind the residence. Tr. at 45.

7. Officer Cooper observed an individual exit the residence, get in the Ford Fusion, and drive away. Tr. at 10. He was unable to positively identify the individual as the Defendant. Tr. at 10. However, based on prior surveillance, Officer Cooper advised the other law enforcement officers that he believed the Fusion would return shortly. Tr. at 10-11, 36.

8. No more than thirty minutes later, the Fusion returned to the residence and backed into the driveway where it was previously parked. Tr. at 11, 46. Officers observed the vehicle, which was still running, remain parked for approximately two to three minutes. Tr. at 11. The driver, who was identified as Defendant, exited the driver's side and walked to the passenger's side. Tr. at 11-12, 46-47.

9. Officer Cooper signaled the other law enforcement officers, who were wearing plain clothes with vests marked “police” on the front and back, to move into the area where the Fusion was parked. Tr. at 13, 36-37, 48. Law enforcement vehicles activated their emergency lights as they attempted to engage Defendant to ensure he knew they were law enforcement. Tr. at 13, 37, 48. Upon arriving at the residence, the officers exited their vehicles and identified themselves as law enforcement by saying “Police. Stop.” Tr. at 14.

10. Upon the arrival of the officers, Defendant fled on foot. Tr. at 13-14, 34, 49, 79. Defendant first walked in the direction of Deputy Stokes. Tr. at 48-49. Deputy Stokes stepped out from his position behind the building and commanded Defendant to stop. Tr. at 48-49. Defendant, however, changed directions and headed to the northeast, running around one of the law enforcement vehicles. Tr. at 49.

11. Officer Cooper, also on foot, chased Defendant through a small open area and over a stone retaining wall. Tr. at 14. Although he momentarily lost sight of Defendant, Officer Cooper knew the direction Defendant was travelling and continued his pursuit. Tr. at 15.

12. After pursuing Defendant for approximately forty-five seconds, officers were eventually led to a gas station located at 87th and James A. Reed Road in Kansas City. Tr. at 15-16, 37. The officers were informed Defendant got in the passenger seat of a Dodge Charger which left the area at a high rate of speed. Tr. at 15-16, 37.

13. Over the radio, Deputy Stokes asked if any officer had remained with the Fusion parked at the residence. Tr at 49-50. When no one indicated they had, he returned to the residence and the car. Tr. at 49-50.

14. After Defendant fled on foot, Ms. Jones, who was originally in the Fusion's passenger's seat, moved to the driver's seat because she had difficulties with her passenger side door. Tr. at 50, 79-81, 90. As she moved between the seats, she observed a gun next to the driver's seat covered with a black towel. Tr. at 82-83, 90. Prior to this discovery, she was unaware there was a gun in the vehicle and was surprised to see it because her daughter was also in the vehicle. Tr. at 82, 90.^[3] Ms. Jones confirmed Defendant did not ask her to take custody of the firearm or to prevent others from having it. Tr. at 90.

15. Deputy Stokes arrived back at the residence and observed that Ms. Jones had moved from the passenger's seat to the driver's seat of the Fusion. Tr. at 50-51, 66. He approached and motioned for her to roll the window down. Tr. at 51, 91. Ms. Jones opened the driver's side door and advised she could not roll the window down because Defendant had the keys. Tr. at 51, 67, 81, 91. During this initial encounter, Deputy Stokes became aware of the young child in the vehicle. Tr. at 67.

16. Deputy Stokes advised Ms. Jones he had a warrant for Defendant's arrest and asked her if she knew where he would go. Tr. at 52. At this time, he observed a crumbled-up towel positioned by Ms. Jones's right thigh, in between the console and the driver's seat. Tr. at 51-52. Deputy Stokes found it odd to see the towel “kind of suspended in the air.” Tr. at 52. He could not actually see the item covered by the towel at this time. Tr. at 68. He asked Ms. Jones if she would exit the vehicle and if he could search the immediate area of the vehicle for weapons. Tr. at 52, 66-69. According to Deputy Stokes, Ms. Jones verbally agreed to both requests and exited the vehicle. Tr. at 52, 67-69. 17. Ms. Jones testified that when she opened her door to speak with the deputy, he knelt beside her door and rummaged through the cubby inside her driver's side door. Tr. at 81-82. She was then asked to exit her vehicle, and she voluntarily did so. Tr. at 82. She denied that Deputy Stokes asked her if he could look inside the car.^[4] Tr. at 82.

18. As Ms. Jones exited the vehicle, Deputy Stokes observed the towel was draped over something long and round which he immediately suspected was the stock of a rifle. Tr. at 53, 68-69. After obtaining verbal consent, he reached inside the vehicle, flipped the towel up, and observed an AR-15 style rifle. Tr. at 53-54; Gov't Exs. 3-4. He did not immediately recover the rifle as he was the only law enforcement officer present at that time. Tr. at 53. Ms. Jones told Deputy Stokes she did not know the firearm was in the vehicle and informed him Defendant uses the vehicle while she works overnight shifts. Tr. at 53-55. According to Deputy Stokes, she seemed dumbfounded the weapon was there. Tr. at 53.

19. Other law enforcement officers, including Officer Cooper, conducted an area canvass for the Dodge Charger for approximately five to ten minutes. Tr. at 16-17, 37. After the unsuccessful pursuit of Defendant, they returned to the residence. Tr. at 16-17. Upon his return, Officer Cooper immediately walked to the Fusion where he observed Ms. Jones talking with Deputy Stokes at the back of the vehicle. Tr. at 17, 35.

20. Deputy Stokes informed...