United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
ORDER
XAVIER
RODRIGUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On this
day came on to be considered Defendant's motion to
suppress (Dkt. No. 82).
Background
Since
April 2017, a DEA task force was investigating Joseph
Gonzalez[1] for allegedly distributing crystal
methamphetamine throughout San Antonio.[2] Periodic
surveillance was conducted at his house located on Readwell
Drive. On June 4, 2018, multiple vehicles were noted coming
to the Readwell house and leaving, consistent with drug
transactions taking place. The ground surveillance team was
assisted that day by aerial surveillance being done by the
Texas Department of Public Safety.
At
approximately 5:24 PM, Mr. Gonzalez, his girlfriend Jenny
Bonds, and Brandon Morris[3] left the residence, got into a Black
Lexus vehicle, and went to a nearby convenience store. Mr.
Gonzalez and Ms. Bonds left the store and drove away. Mr.
Morris remained at the store. As soon as Mr. Gonzalez got
onto IH-37 going southbound, law enforcement officers, who
were following him, saw a traffic infraction (failure to
maintain a single lane), at which point the deputy activated
his emergency lights. Mr. Gonzalez did not immediately pull
over and continued driving for two miles. During the pursuit,
the deputies noted a lot of movement in the vehicle.
Once
the vehicle stopped, 71.9 grams of crystal methamphetamine
were recovered from the front floorboard where Ms. Bonds was
seated, and a handgun was recovered from Ms. Bonds'
purse. Ms. Bonds agreed to cooperate and told the deputies
that Mr. Gonzalez was on the phone during the chase with an
unknown male, that Gonzalez dumped the meth on the floor and
told her to pour Gatorade over it and stomp it into the
floor, and that he gave her the handgun and told her to put
it in her purse.
While
the pursuit of the Lexus was taking place, aerial and ground
surveillance was still being done at the Readwell home. The
deputies at the Lexus chase informed officers on the radio
that they intended to obtain a search warrant for the home
based on the meth found in the car. Simultaneously, the
aerial surveillance team was reporting that someone driving a
silver Mitsubishi arrived at the Readwell home[4] and was placing
items from the house into the back of the
Mitsubishi.[5] After being at the residence for a few
minutes, aerial surveillance reported the Mitsubishi was
leaving the residence and TFO Ricks then began to follow the
vehicle. The Mitsubishi drove a short distance[6] and parked in
front of a house on Misty Pine Drive (later determined to be
Defendant Leon's mother's home).
TFO
Ricks arrived at Leon's mother's house. He and other
officers approached the Mitsubishi with weapons drawn. TFO
Ricks testified that as he approached the driver, he saw a
red towel or blanket covering rifles, but the barrels were
still visible.[7] The driver (later discovered to be
Defendant Leon) and the passenger (Defendant Morris) were
ordered out of the vehicle and immediately handcuffed for
officer safety. A search of the vehicle found meth in the
center console, at which time Leon was placed under arrest.
Leon was read his Miranda rights and responded to
some questions stating that the officers already knew where
he was coming from. Leon told officers that Gonzalez had
called him during his police chase and that Leon had weapons
and drugs at Readwell and that Gonzalez told him to go to the
house. Leon further told officers that he understood
Gonzalez's request as a request to remove the weapons and
drugs from the house. Several rifles, a shotgun, a pistol and
a safe were found inside the Mitsubishi. A later search of
the safe was conducted once the search warrant had been
signed for the search of the Readwell residence and the safe.
2.5 kilograms of crystal meth was found in the safe.
Defendant's
Motion to Suppress
Defendant
seeks the suppression of his statements to law enforcement on
June 4 (Dkt. No. 82 at 3). The heart of Defendant's
argument is that there was no probable cause for approaching
the Mitsubishi with guns drawn and handcuffing Defendant.
Defendant argues that nothing legally prevented Leon from
going inside the Readwell residence after Gonzalez was
arrested. He further argues that aerial surveillance only saw
that items were being removed from the Readwell residence and
placed in a vehicle, and that there is nothing inherently
illegal about these acts. Further, he argues that when he
drove away in the Mitsubishi, he committed no traffic
infractions to justify a stop of his vehicle and that he
legally parked his car in front of the Misty Pine residence.
Accordingly, Defendant argues that although all of the above
is highly suspicious, there was no probable cause for the
initial stop. Further, he argues that even if TFO Ricks did
see shotguns in the back of the vehicle, a person in Texas
may possess such weapons (absent prohibited status and police
had no knowledge of any prohibited status). Defendant argues
that the search of the Mitsubishi was improper, and that
officers should have obtained a search warrant for the
Mitsubishi and merely detained Leon till such time as the
warrant was signed. Defendant argues that all evidence
obtained as a result of his allegedly “illegal
stop/detention/arrest” should be suppressed under the
“fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Finally,
Defendant argues that any statements he gave were involuntary
and should be suppressed.
Analysis
“It
is well settled that warrantless searches of automobiles are
permitted by the Fourth Amendment if the officers have
probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains
contraband or other evidence of a crime. Whether an officer
has probable cause to search a vehicle depends on the
totality of the circumstances viewed ‘in light of the
observations, knowledge, and training of the law enforcement
officers involved in the warrantless search.'”
United States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 686 (5th Cir.
1995) (internal citations omitted). Under the
“collective knowledge doctrine, ” the officer
conducting a stop, search, or arrest based on probable cause
need not “know all of the facts amounting to probable
cause, as long as there is some degree of communication
between the arresting officer and an officer who has
knowledge of all the necessary facts.” United
States v. Ibarra, 493 F.3d 526, 530 (5th Cir. 2007);
see also United States v. Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d
753, 759 (5th Cir. 1999).
The
Court finds that probable cause to conduct a warrantless
search of the Mitsubishi was lawfully established when: meth
was found inside the Lexus vehicle; Ms. Bonds told police
officers that Gonzalez had been on the cell phone during the
vehicle chase; and surveillance observed items being removed
from the Readwell home and put into the Mitsubishi. Police
officers at the scene of the Lexus stop relayed by radio that
they intended to obtain a search warrant of the Readwell
home. Contrary to the Defendant's arguments, this Court
finds that probable cause existed to obtain a search warrant
for the Readwell home inasmuch as a number of individuals
were seen entering and quickly exiting the premises in a
manner consistent with drug trafficking and Gonzalez was seen
leaving the Readwell home, entering the Lexus vehicle,
driving away and drugs were then found inside the vehicle. A
probable cause determination involves a practical,
common-sense decision of whether there is a fair probability
that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place.
Once
other law enforcement officers became aware of drugs in the
Lexus and then attempted to obtain a search warrant for the
Readwell house, they were justifiably concerned when the
Mitsubishi arrived, took items out of the house, and placed
them in the Mitsubishi. The same totality of the
circumstances that supported probable cause for a search
warrant of the Readwell home also supports the probable cause
determination to conduct a warrantless search of the
Mitsubishi. See United States v. Williams, 627 F.3d
247, 251 (7th Cir. 2010) (“there was ‘a fair
probability' that contraband or evidence of a crime would
be found in the [vehicle]; absolute certainty of such a
discovery is not required. The determination whether
suspicious ...