MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BERYL
A. HOWELL Chief Judge
Defendant
Manuel Reynoso is charged in an indictment with unlawful
possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person convicted
of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(Count I), and simple possession of marijuana and of
n-ethylpentylone (methamphetamines), in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 844(a) (Counts II and III). These counts arise
from evidence seized from a vehicle the defendant was driving
in the early morning hours of May 16, 2018 and from his
person following his arrest the same day. The defendant has
moved to suppress all physical evidence. Def.'s Mot. and
Mem. Supp. Suppression (“Def.'s Mot.”), at 1,
ECF No. 9. Upon consideration of the memoranda of law
submitted by the government and the defendant, and the
testimony presented at the suppression hearing on November
16, 2018, the Court orally denied the motion at the
suppression hearing and, given the lateness of the hour when
the hearing was completed, indicated that an explanation in
writing of the reasons for doing would be forthcoming.
See Rough Transcript of Hearing (Nov. 16, 2018)
(“H'rg Tr. (Rough)”) at 201:17-
21.[1]
This Memorandum and Order sets out the reasons that the
defendant's motion is denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
At the
suppression hearing held on November 16, 2018, the government
presented the testimony of two U.S. Secret Service Officers,
Officer Scott Biel and Officer Michael Amaturo, who were
involved in the traffic stop and subsequent search of the car
driven by the defendant, respectively. Officer Biel testified
that, on May 16, 2018, at approximately 1:19 a.m., while he
was driving a marked patrol cruiser, he observed a black BMW
traveling southbound on 17th Street N.W. in Washington, D.C.
without its headlights on. H'rg Tr. (Rough) at 123:13-14,
125:23-126:13. Officers conducted a traffic stop of the car
on 17th Street north of Constitution Avenue, id. at
127:18, and observed the defendant driving the car, with two
passengers, one in the front seat and one in the back seat
behind the front passenger, id. at 130:20-23,
131:23- 132:5. Officer Biel explained the reason for the
stop, id. at 132:12-17, then asked who had been
smoking marijuana within the vehicle, id. at
133:8-9. Officer Biel testified that he asked this question
because he noticed a “moderate odor” of marijuana
immediately upon approaching the driver's side open
window. Id. at 133:13-17. In response to Officer
Biel's question, the defendant stated that nobody had
been smoking marijuana within the vehicle. Id. at
133:20-21. The defendant then picked up an amount of
marijuana wrapped in a $1 bill, showed it to the officer, and
said “this is all we have.” Id. at
133:21-23. In response to further questions, the defendant
provided his license and the vehicle's registration, but
could not provide valid proof of insurance for the vehicle.
Id. at 134:20-135:8. The defendant told the officer
that the vehicle belonged to his girlfriend, who was not
present at the time of the stop. See Id. at
135:21-24.
Officer
Biel decided to search the car for additional marijuana,
see Id. at 140:1-6. Two other officers ordered the
rear passenger and the front passenger out of the car,
id. at 140:12-19, and those passengers were then
detained in handcuffs, id. at 141:12-19. During this
time, without being asked to do so, the defendant got out of
the vehicle, holding his cell phone in his hand. Id.
at 141:2-4, 142:5-7. Multiple times, Officer Biel told the
defendant to put down his cell phone, id. at
142:8-17, but the defendant did not comply, id. at
142:18-19. Instead, the defendant walked around the
driver's side door towards the front of the car, then
“took off at a sprint, ” initially running
southbound on 17th Street, then turning right to go westbound
on Constitution Avenue. Id. at 142:20-143:7. Officer
Biel issued a radio alert describing the defendant and the
direction he was fleeing, then returned to his cruiser to
pursue the defendant. Id. at 143:8-13.
Meanwhile,
Officer Michael Amaturo, who was patrolling in the vicinity
of the traffic stop and had received a radio alert about the
stop, approached the BMW. See Id. at 175:6- 177:12
(testimony of Officer Amaturo). He testified that upon his
approach to the scene, he saw the front driver and passenger
doors were open, as was a rear passenger door, and the two
passengers from the BMW were seated outside of the vehicle.
See Id. at 177:22-178:4, 178:11- 20. After
confirming that none of the officers already present on the
scene had conducted a plain view inspection of the vehicle,
Officer Amaturo used a flashlight to see what was visible in
plain view. See Id. at 182:5-183:4. He saw a firearm
magazine and cartridge in the front passenger door, which he
announced over the radio to caution law enforcement agents
that the defendant may be armed. See Id. at
188:9-24; see also Id. at 144:2-15 (testimony of
Officer Biel, indicating that Officer Amaturo's
announcement changed the search for the defendant from a
search for a fleeing suspect to a search for a fleeing and
possibly armed suspect).
The
defendant was eventually arrested near the intersection of
Maine Avenue and East Basin Drive SW. See Id. at
144:20-23. A search of the defendant immediately after his
arrest recovered approximately $2, 684 in cash and two cell
phones. See Id. at 145:10-16; Gov't Opp'n to
Mot. to Suppress (“Gov't Opp'n”), at 3,
ECF No. 13. The defendant was taken to temporary detention,
where federal law enforcement officers more thoroughly
searched his pockets and recovered an additional $205 in cash
and a $1 bill folded into an envelope around a white
crystalline substance. See H'rg Tr. (Rough) at
145:17-146:4, 149:3-18; Gov't Opp'n at 3. This
substance tested positive for methamphetamines. Gov't
Opp'n at 3 & n.3.
A
search of the vehicle by a crime scene officer recovered (1)
a Glock 27, .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol with a
high-capacity magazine that contained 20 rounds of ammunition
from underneath the driver's side floor mat; (2) the
aforementioned magazine containing nine .40 caliber
cartridges from the front passenger door pocket; (3) a
“grinder” container with suspected marijuana from
the center console; (4) the $1 bill wrapped around an amount
of marijuana; and (5) approximately $4. Id. at 3;
H'rg Tr. (Rough) at 146:7-16. At this point, Officer Biel
completed a notice of infraction for the defendant for
driving without headlights. H'rg Tr. (Rough) at
147:24-148:22.
II.
DISCUSSION
The
defendant argues that the evidence seized from the vehicle
must be suppressed because the officers had neither probable
cause nor reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle.
Def.'s Mot. at 4-5. As support, he contends that the odor
of marijuana cannot constitute probable cause to search under
D.C. law, id. at 6, and that the tangible evidence
recovered from the car was the fruit of an illegal seizure,
see Id. at 7-8. The government counters that the
defendant does not own the BMW and therefore lacks standing
to suppress evidence recovered from the vehicle, Gov't
Opp'n at 4-5, and, in any event, that the ammunition
magazine was observed in plain view, id. at 7-8,
rendering the search valid under the automobile exception to
the warrant requirement, id. at 5, and giving the
officers probable cause to believe that evidence of firearm
offenses could be found in the vehicle, id. at 8.
Further, the government contends that the officers'
search of the defendant was a permissible search incident to
a lawful arrest, id. at 9. These arguments are
addressed in turn.
The
Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from
conducting “unreasonable searches and seizures”
and “this protection extends to a brief investigatory
stop of persons or vehicles, whether or not an arrest
follows.” United States v. Bailey, 622 F.3d 1,
5 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Arvizu,
534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002)); see also Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968). Generally, “searches [and
seizures] must be supported by a warrant obtainable upon a
showing of probable cause.” United States v.
Jackson, 415 F.3d 88, 91 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Searches that
are conducted without prior approval by a judge “are
per se unreasonable under the Fourth
Amendment-subject only to a few specifically established and
well-delineated exceptions.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). Among the exceptions implicated in
this case are the automobile exception, plain view, and
searches incident to a lawful arrest.
At the
outset, to prevail on a motion to suppress, the defendant
must first establish that he had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in the area that was searched or the items that were
seized. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 106
(1980); United States v. Sheffield, 832 F.3d 296,
303-04 (D.C. Cir. 2016). As noted, the government argues that
the defendant lacks standing to challenge the search because
he has failed to offer evidence that he had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the vehicle. See Gov't
Opp'n at 3-5 & n.4. The Court assumes, without
deciding, that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in the vehicle because the outcome of the suppression
motion would be the same regardless.
Regarding
the initial traffic stop, “[a]s a general matter, the
decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police
have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has
occurred.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S.
806, 810 (1996); see also United States v. Mitchell,
951 F.2d 1291, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “Even a
relatively minor offense that would not of itself lead to an
arrest can provide a basis for a stop.”
Mitchell, 951 F.2d at 1295 (internal alteration and
quotation marks omitted). Officer Biel testified that he
stopped the defendant for driving at night without any
headlights, a violation of D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 18, §
703.1. See H'rg Tr. (Rough) at 125:23-126:13.
This violation provided objectively reasonable probable cause
for the initial stop.
Once a
vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation,
officers may order the driver and any passengers to get out
of the vehicle. See Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S.
408, 412- 15 (1997); United States v. Washington,
559 F.3d 573, 576 (D.C. Cir. 2009). In addition, pursuant to
the “automobile exception, ” authorities may
conduct a warrantless search of a motor vehicle “[i]f a
car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it
contains contraband.” United States v.
Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 567 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (alteration
in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where
officers observe contraband in the passenger compartment of a
car, the existence of the contraband “is a factor that
strongly supports” the lawfulness of a vehicle search
and all containers “that may conceal the object of the
search.” Jackson, 415 F.3d at 91-92 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Here, Officer Biel had probable
cause to believe that the car contained marijuana because he
smelled a “moderate odor” of marijuana, H'rg
Tr. (Rough) at 133:13-17, and the defendant conceded that
there was at least a small amount of marijuana in the ...