JANIE S. MAYERON, Magistrate Judge.
The above matter came on for hearing before the undersigned upon defendant Todd Allen Mudgett's Motion to Suppress Statements and Evidence [Docket No. 499]. Assistant United States Attorney Steven L. Schleicher appeared on behalf of the Government; Lee R. Johnson appeared on behalf of Todd Allen Mudgett who was present at the hearing. Special Agent Shawn Harris and Minnesota State Trooper Scott Schneider testified on behalf of the Government; private investigator Warren John Robinson testified on behalf of defendant. The parties agreed that the evidence previously adduced at the hearing on November 30, 2011, including testimony and exhibits placed into evidence, constituted substantive evidence in the instant matter.
The matter was referred to the undersigned by the District Court for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B).
Defendant Todd Allen Mudgett is seeking to suppress evidence seized at a traffic stop on August 8, 2011, and statements made by him during the course of that stop.
DEA Special Agent Shawn Harris testified that prior to the traffic stop of Mudgett on August 8, 2011, he knew defendant Jose Oceguara was involved in a drug trafficking organization as a multi-pound methamphetamine distributor with a distinct customer base. February 7, 2012, Hearing Transcript ("Tr.") [Docket No. 520] 7. Agent Harris also knew that defendant Jose Ramirez-Valdovinos had been identified as one of Oceguara's alternative sources for methamphetamine when issues of supply and price arose. Tr. 7-8.
Agent Harris testified that on May 19, 2011, officers had conducted surveillance of a controlled buy of four ounces of methamphetamine between a confidential source and defendant Javier Hernandez-Coria. Tr. 8-9. They followed Hernandez-Coria to a restaurant in St. Paul where he met up with Oceguara and some of his associates and then observed them drive in tandem to an apartment complex located on McCarrons Boulevard
Agent Harris's testimony then turned to Mudgett. Prior to the traffic stop of Mudgett on August 8, 2011, Agent Harris testified that based on analysis of telephone toll records, officers knew that a phone subscribed to Mudgett had frequent calls to and from a phones used by Oceguara, which led officers to believe that Mudgett was potential customer of Oceguara. Tr. 10. On July 29, 2011, officers intercepted five telephone conversations between Mudgett and Oceguara. Tr. 11. The officers concluded that Mudgett and Oceguara were discussing through coded language how much money Mudgett had and an agreement to meet later that day for a drug transaction. Tr. 11, 18-19.
During the last intercepted conversation between Oceguara and Mudgett on July 29, 2011, there was a discussion that Mudgett owed $300 for a drug transaction that had occurred a week earlier. Tr. 12, 29-30. In that phone call, using coded language, they talked Mudgett getting about $13,000, $14,000 or $15,400. Tr. 14, 29. Mudgett explained that the reason he was short was he had a friend that was getting out of jail, and once that happened, he would be able to get the full amount owed. Tr. 30.
Agent Harris stated that during the course of their entire investigation, officers never observed Oceguara having a legitimate job and that his trade was selling narcotics. Tr. 11-12. Further, officers knew that Mudgett had a previous narcotics conviction on his criminal record. Tr. 12. Officers also knew that Oceguara had a relationship with Mudgett's daughter and that they had one child together. Tr. 19.
On August 2, 2011, officers intercepted another communication between Oceguara and Mudgett, at which time Oceguara asked Mudgett "do you need anything today or tomorrow" and Mudgett replied, "I'll meet with you tomorrow." Tr. 17-18.
On August 8, 2011, following the interception of some phone calls and prior to the stop of Mudgett, officers observed Oceguara and Ramirez-Valdovinos meet at a Target and then travel in tandem to a bowling alley in White Bear Lake. Tr. 13. There, they encountered another known customer, defendant Duane Eugene Smith, who was waiting for them. Tr. 13. Officers observed Oceguara meet with Smith, walk over to Ramirez-Valdovinos's car, and then walk back to Smith's vehicle, at which time Ramirez-Valdovinos left. Tr. 13. Based on these observations, officers believed that Oceguara had obtained money from Smith, Oceguara provided the payment to Ramirez-Valdovinos who in return gave Oceguara narcotics, and then Oceguara provided the narcotics to Smith. Tr. 13. The interaction between Ramirez-Valdovinos and Oceguara lasted for about a minute, and was consistent with other narcotics transactions. Tr. 13-14.
Approximately fifteen minutes after this interaction, officers intercepted a telephone call between Oceguara and Mudgett in which they discussed how much money Mudgett had and agreed to meet at 7:00 p.m. Tr. 14. Officers then intercepted a call between Oceguara and Ramirez-Valdovinos, in which Oceguara stated: "We're going to need another one of those like the one at the bowling alley. Meet us at seven o'clock at my father-in-law's off of Rice." Tr. 15. Officers assumed that the reference to Oceguara's father-in-law was Mudgett. Tr. 19-20.
Officer's conducted surveillance and observed Oceguara's Jeep pull into the parking lot of the apartment located on McCarrons Boulevard and saw one of his associates, defendant Jesus Lopez-Vasquez, get out of the vehicle and wait in the parking lot. Tr. 15. A few moments later, officers observed Ramirez-Valdovinos arrive at the parking lot, followed by Mudgett shortly after.
Officers maintained surveillance at the apartment complex at McCarrons Boulevard and approximately an hour-and-half-later, officers observed Mudgett get into his vehicle, a white GMC Jimmy, and leave the area. Tr. 16, 22. Surveillance officers followed Mudgett from the apartment complex. Tr. 17. Minnesota State Trooper Scott Schneider was contacted to make a walled-off traffic stop of Mudgett's vehicle and was told that they had reason to believe he had methamphetamine. Tr. 17, 27.
Officers did not know what Mudgett had been doing during the time he was in the apartment complex and had no surveillance on the back of the apartment.
Trooper Schneider testified that on August 8, 2011, he was contacted by DEA agents who told him that law enforcement had an individual under surveillance and that he was going to be picking up a large amount of methamphetamine and then later leaving an apartment complex in Roseville. Tr. 35. After the individual was seen leaving the apartment building, Trooper Schneider was told to stop the vehicle, make contact and seize the narcotics. Tr. 35.
Trooper Schneider encountered the white sports utility vehicle, matching the description provided by the DEA, going eastbound on Highway 36 near the junction with Interstate 35E. Tr. 36. Trooper Schneider testified that he had been told by surveillance that the vehicle had already failed to signal a turn, a violation of Minnesota law, and he observed the vehicle traveling 62 miles per hour in a posted 55 miles-per-hour zone. Tr. 36. Both of these violations provided a valid basis to stop the vehicle and issue a citation or warning. Tr. 36.
Trooper Schneider activated his lights and stopped the vehicle on Highway 36 near the exit for White Bear Avenue. Tr. 37. Trooper Schneider made contact with the driver, Mudgett, and asked him for his license and Mudgett complied. Tr. 38. Trooper Schneider noticed that Mudgett's hand was shaking and asked him if he was all right. Tr. 38. Mudgett told Trooper Schneider that he was fine and that he was shaking because he had just been jogging by a lake. Tr. 38. According to Trooper Schneider, a shaking hand is a sign of being abnormally nervousness. Tr. 38.
Trooper Schneider also noted that Mudgett had a sweat ring on his T-shirt that ran from his neck to his nipple line, which was consistent with his story that he had been jogging, but also can be an indication of nervousness. Tr. 38-39. Trooper Schneider explained to Mudgett why he had been stopped and then returned to his squad car to contact DEA personnel to advise them of what he had learned. Tr. 39.
Trooper Schneider explained that he called the DEA agents because he wanted to confirm with them that they were certain that Mudgett was the subject of the investigation and the one they observed leaving the apartment. Tr. 39, 62-63. Trooper Schneider told the DEA agent that Mudgett claimed he had been running around the lake and that the sweat was consistent with running. Tr. 39-40. The DEA agent told Trooper Schneider that they were sure that Mudgett had not just finished running around the lake and that he had come from the apartment.
Trooper Schneider approached the vehicle again with knowledge that he had been told that Mudgett had been involved in a drug transaction, he had observed signs of nervousness, he had been given a false story by Mudgett about running, and Mudgett had a past criminal record. Tr. 40.
Trooper Schneider asked Mudgett to step out of the vehicle almost immediately after the traffic stop. Tr. 40. Mudgett was not handcuffed or restrained in any way, however, he was not free to leave. Tr. 41, 64. At one point Mudgett put his hand in his pockets, which caused Trooper Schneider to conduct a pat down for officer safety. Tr. 41. Trooper Schneider explained to Mudgett why he had performed the pat down. Tr. 42. No contraband was discovered during the pat down. Tr. 41-42. Mudgett was not restrained in anyway after the pat down. Tr. 42.
After the pat down, Trooper Schneider asked Mudgett if he had a criminal record, and Mudgett responded that he had been arrested for a narcotics violation for which he was serving parole.
Trooper Schneider wrote out a formal warning for the two traffic violations and Mudgett was given the written warnings. Tr. 42. After the written warnings had been given to Mudgett, Trooper Schneider asked if he had any drugs or large sums of cash inside the vehicle, and Mudgett said no.
According to Trooper Schneider, Mudgett's fast speech and nervousness was indicative of criminal activity. Tr. 42. Further, based on the statement by Mudgett that there could be pot in the vehicle, Trooper Schneider believed there could be narcotics inside the vehicle. Tr. 43.
Trooper Schneider told Mudgett to stand by the light pole during the canine search. Tr. 65; Government Ex. 51, p. 13. Trooper Schneider testified that Mudgett not restrained, but he was not free to leave at this time. Tr. 43, 64-65.
Suspecting that Mudgett was involved in criminal narcotic activity and that narcotics were inside the vehicle, Trooper Schneider utilized his certified narcotics canine approximately 13 minutes after the stop.
Trooper Schneider located in Mudgett's vehicle a pouch on the floor behind the front passenger seat near the center console. Tr. 48. Trooper Schneider opened the pouch and found several baggies (totaling approximately one pound) containing a crystal substance that was consistent with methamphetamine. Tr. 49. At that point, Trooper Schneider decided to arrest Mudgett. Tr. 49. Mudgett fled officers and was eventually apprehended and handcuffed. Tr. 49-51.
Mudgett argued that the evidence seized from his vehicle should be suppressed on the basis that "but for" constitutional violations by police, the dog sniff which led to the discovery of the contraband from his vehicle would not have occurred.
In sum, Mudgett submitted that Trooper Schneider's decision to perform a canine sniff was the direct consequence of the constitutional violation because, but for the misrepresentations by surveillance officers that he was transporting drugs and that he had not been running, Trooper Schneider would not have conducted the dog sniff and would not have searched the vehicle.
The Government countered that was stop and search Mudgett's car was supported by probable cause and alternatively, was justified as a
The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
"It is well established that a roadside traffic stop is a `seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
Mudgett conceded that he was speeding and therefore, Trooper Schneider had probable cause to stop his vehicle, regardless of whether the actual motivation for the stop was related to his purported drug activities. Thus, the only question to resolve is whether Trooper Schneider's subsequent search of the vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment.
"[S]earches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions."
Additionally, if, "during a traffic stop, an officer develops a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a vehicle is carrying contraband, he has justification for a greater intrusion unrelated to the traffic offense."
This Court finds there was both probable cause and a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Mudgett's vehicle was carrying contraband to support the search of the automobile.
Before the stop and search on August 8, 2012, Trooper Schneider had been told by DEA agents that Mudgett had been involved in a narcotics transaction that day. This information was based on: (1) an observed drug transaction between Oceguara, Ramierez-Valdovinos and Smith, another known drug customer, earlier that day; (2) a phone call between Mudgett and Oceguara intercepted 15 minutes after that transaction discussing price, narcotics and when and where to meet; (3) a subsequent phone call between Oceguara and Ramirez-Valdovinos referencing the transaction that had just occurred involving Oceguara, Ramierez-Valdovinos and Smith and setting up an encounter at Mudgett's apartment building at the same time as the meeting set to take place with Mudgett; and (4) the subsequent interaction that was consistent with a drug transaction which took place in the parking lot of Mudgett's apartment complex at the time set for the meeting (7:00 p.m.) with a known source of drugs (Ramirez-Valdovinos), a known drug dealer (Oceguara and his associate, Lopez-Vasquez) and a known customer (Mudgett).
This information, coupled with observed signs of nervousness (including shaking and sweating) during Trooper Schneider's interaction with Mudgett, Mudgett's statement that there could be pot in the vehicle, and the subsequent canine alert for the presence of narcotics gave Trooper Schneider probable cause to believe that narcotics were present in the vehicle.
Similarly, even if the officers could not attest to what had occurred in the McCarrons Boulevard apartment building during the intervening time from the alleged transaction in the parking lot to when Mudgett left the apartment complex, and even if Mudgett left the building empty-handed and had been jogging prior to the time he was stopped, the same facts supporting a finding of probable cause provided Trooper Schneider with reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot at the time he conducted the search of Mudgett's vehicle. Prior to the stop, Trooper Schneider had been told by DEA agents that Mudgett had been involved in a drug transaction, at the time of the stop Mudgett displayed signs consistent with nervousness, Mudgett told Trooper Schneider there might be pot in the car and the dog alerted for the presence of narcotics.
Evidence seized pursuant to a canine sniff can be suppressed if the canine sniff was the direct result of a constitutional violation.
For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that Mudgett's motion to suppress evidence seized from the search of his vehicle should be denied.
Mudgett argued that when Trooper Schneider stopped him on August 8, 2011, he was effectively detained from the time of his traffic stop and was at no point free to leave, thereby entitling him to a
When determining whether a suspect is in custody, courts consider the following six "indicia of custody":
The determination of whether an individual is in custody at a particular time depends on "the extent of the physical or psychological restraints placed on the suspect during interrogation in light of whether a `reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood his situation' to be one of custody."
Significant to this Court's analysis, as a general rule "the temporary and relatively nonthreatening detention involved in a traffic stop or
The Court finds that Mudgett was not subjected to a formal arrest or restraint on his freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest during the stop and prior to his arrest. When Mudgett was pulled over based on the traffic stop, he was almost immediately asked to step outside of the vehicle. However, the fact that Mudgett was detained outside of his automobile for a traffic violation did not automatically place him in custody for the purposes of
468 U.S. at 436 (footnote and internal citation omitted). On the other hand, "questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation, which frequently is prolonged, and in which the detainee often is aware that questioning will continue until he provides his interrogators the answers they seek."
Here, while Mudgett was detained outside his vehicle prior to his arrest, at no time was he physically restrained during the stop and Trooper Schneider's investigation. Further, although a pat down search occurred, it was done for officer safety, it was brief and did not result in any further limitation on Mudgett's freedom of movement. There were no strong-arm tactics or deceptive stratagems employed during questioning and Mudgett voluntarily responded to questions. The atmosphere was not police-dominated given that the questioning of Mudgett took place on the side of a public highway and in the presence of one or two officers.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Mudgett was not in custody for the purposes of
For the reasons set forth above and based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
Todd Allen Mudgett's Motion to Suppress Statements and Evidence [Docket No. 499] be
Government Ex. 51, p. 5. From this excerpt, it is clear that the surveillance officer referenced as "Mv4" had just spoken
In this case, the purpose of the traffic stop concluded once Trooper Schneider completed and then provided Mudgett with a copy of the written warning for the traffic violation. Based on this Court's review of the video for the traffic stop, this occurred approximately at 9:12 minutes into the stop.
