United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
George
Z. Singal United States District Judge
Before
the Court is Defendant John Valdes’ Motion to Suppress
(ECF No. 59). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on this
Motion on December 4, 2018, and, thereafter, received
supplemental briefing from the parties (ECF Nos. 288 &
291). Having considered the evidence presented at the
hearing, as well as the arguments submitted by counsel, the
Court DENIES the Motion for the reasons outlined below.
I.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
In
2017, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration
(“DEA”), along with other law enforcement
agencies, began investigating a suspected marijuana
trafficking operation in Androscoggin County, Maine. As part
of this investigation, officers conducted extensive
surveillance on a residence at 1302 Sabattus Street in
Lewiston (“the residence”), which was home to
Richard Daniels. Based on information gleaned from an
informant, they believed the residence was being used to
distribute large amounts of marijuana to local and
out-of-state buyers.
While
conducting surveillance on August 24, 2017, DEA Taskforce
Agent Barry Kelly (“Kelly”) saw a black Chevy
Suburban with Massachusetts registration park at the
residence. The vehicle remained at the residence for forty
minutes and, upon departure, drove straight to I-95 South.
Suspicious that the Suburban was trafficking marijuana out of
the state, Kelly pursued it from the residence and into New
Hampshire. There, Kelly coordinated with the New Hampshire
State Police to set up a traffic stop. New Hampshire State
Trooper Brian Gacek (“Gacek”) identified the
Suburban on I-95 and pulled it over for speeding. He then
approached the front of the vehicle, observing a duffel bag
in the rear storage area as he went, and spoke to the driver.
The driver provided a Massachusetts license identifying him
as John Valdes. During the ensuing conversation, Gacek
detected the odor of fresh marijuana emanating from the open
window.[1]Gacek proceeded to ask Valdes about the
odor and Valdes fumbled with his story. Valdes initially
responded that he did not smoke marijuana, but then revised
that answer twice. He first backtracked by saying that he had
smoked marijuana in the vehicle the previous day, and then
amended that account by saying that he had actually done so
on the morning of the 24th. When Gacek indicated that he
smelled fresh not burnt marijuana, Valdes suggested that the
odor was coming from his skin.
Trooper
Gacek then asked Valdes to step out of the vehicle and
conducted a pat down revealing a large bundle of cash in one
of his pockets. Next, Gacek asked Valdes if there was any
marijuana in the Suburban. Valdes initially said no. Gacek
then requested permission to search the vehicle, which Valdes
refused. In response, Gacek informed Valdes that if he did
not provide consent, Gacek had the authority to seize the
Suburban while he applied to a judge for a search warrant.
After hearing this, Valdes informed Gacek that there was
marijuana in the vehicle. Gacek queried how much and Valdes
disclosed that it was four or five pounds. Gacek then asked
Valdes if he wanted to consent to a search or go through the
search warrant application process. Valdes responded by
granting his consent. After that, Gacek read a consent form
to Valdes and, roughly twenty-nine minutes after the initial
stop, Valdes signed it. At no time during or prior to this
exchange did Gacek raise his voice, unholster his weapon,
threaten Valdes, or restrain him. The subsequent search
revealed a duffel bag containing marijuana in the passenger
compartment’s rear storage area.[2] The marijuana was
mostly vacuum sealed, but Gacek found some in “one or
two” Ziploc bags. (12/04/18 Tr. (ECF No. 280), PageID #
611.) Gacek then placed Defendant in handcuffs and
transported him to the Greenland Police Department for an
interview.[3]
Approximately
one month later, on September 29, 2017, Agent Kelly observed
Richard Daniels placing a black bag in the trunk of a white
Dodge Charger parked at the residence. The car had Texas
registration and was later discovered to be a rental vehicle.
After the Charger departed, Kelly followed as it drove
directly onto I-95 South. Once the car crossed into New
Hampshire, Kelly again coordinated a traffic stop, this time
with Sergeant Mark Hall (“Hall”) of the New
Hampshire State Police. Hall located the Charger on I-95,
pursued it, and eventually pulled it over for multiple
traffic violations.[4] Hall approached the driver’s side
door and noted that there were two men inside. He asked the
driver for his license and registration, identified the
driver as Valdes, and identified the passenger as Michael
Miller. During this interaction, Hall noticed that Valdes was
abnormally nervous for a traffic stop, and that Miller would
not meet his gaze. Hall then smelled the odor of fresh
marijuana coming through the window.[5] Upon detecting this odor,
Hall requested that Valdes step out of the car. Valdes did as
he was asked, and Miller stayed in the Charger.
Once
Valdes was outside, Hall asked him several questions. First,
Hall asked Valdes where they were coming from. Valdes said
that they were coming from Belgrade-a statement that Miller
contradicted shortly after when he said they were coming from
“Sabattus.” (12/04/18 Tr., PageID # 629.) Hall
also asked Valdes if there was any marijuana in the car.
Valdes initially said no but stated that he had smoked some
in the car earlier that day. Hall then asked if there was
even a small amount of marijuana inside, and Valdes admitted
that there was. On being asked to quantify the amount, Valdes
said it was about a pound. At that point, Hall requested
permission to search the vehicle. Valdes hesitated, asked if
he was going to be arrested, and Hall replied that he could
not make any promises. Hall then allowed Valdes to consider
his request briefly before repeating it. This time, Valdes
granted consent verbally. Soon afterward, Trooper Gacek
arrived on the scene and Hall retrieved a consent form, which
he read to Valdes and allowed Valdes to read. Twenty-six
minutes from the initial stop, Valdes signed the form. The
officers then searched the car. In the trunk, they found a
pizza box full of honey butane oil, which is a form of
marijuana concentrate, and a duffel bag containing twelve
gallon-sized Ziploc bags of marijuana.
II.
DISCUSSION
Defendant
argues that the Court should suppress all evidence derived
from the August 24th and September 29th roadside interactions
and searches.[6] He contends that: (1) the searches
violated his rights because neither fell within a recognized
exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant
requirement; and (2) the officers illegally obtained his
statements on both occasions through un-Mirandized
custodial interrogation. However, the Court disagrees on both
fronts.
A.
The Warrant Requirement
The
Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures generally forbids the government from
conducting warrantless searches unless one of “a few
specifically established and well-delineated
exceptions” applies. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.
332, 338 (2009) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389
U.S. 347, 357 (1967)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Any
evidence obtained from a warrantless search that does not
fall into such an exception is subject to exclusion. See
United States v. Tiru-Plaza, 766 F.3d 111, 115 (1st Cir.
2014). Relevant to this case are the automobile exception and
the consent exception. See United States v.
Franklin, 630 F.3d 53, 59-61 (1st Cir. 2011) (discussing
both). The former allows the police to “seize and
search an automobile prior to obtaining a warrant where they
have probable cause to believe that the automobile contains
contraband.” United States v. Silva, 742 F.3d
1, 7 (1st Cir. 2014). The latter allows the police to conduct
a warrantless search based on consent that is given
“freely and voluntarily.” United States v.
Jones, 523 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2008). Where, as here,
a defendant moves to suppress evidence seized without a
warrant, the government bears the burden of proving that an
exception applies. United States v. Ramos-Morales,
981 F.2d 625, 628 (1st Cir. 1992).
i.
Automobile Exception
The
Court first concludes that both searches were valid under the
automobile exception. The government has carried its burden
to show that probable cause provided prior ...