Opinion
Crim. No. L-00-0395
March 6, 2001
ORDER
Now before the Court are: (i) Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, and (ii) Defendant's Motion for Notice of Rule 404(b) Evidence. On February 6, and 23, 2001, the Court held a hearing on the record for the purpose of deciding the motions. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby:
(i) DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence;
(ii) GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Notice of Federal Rule 404(b) Evidence.
I. Background
On July 19, 2000, Detective David McDermott applied for and received a search warrant for the Defendant's home at 1219 West LaFayette Avenue and for his car, a 2000 Plymouth Neon. Detective McDermott's affidavit in support of the warrant application included the following facts:
On July 10, 2000, a black male entered Carrolton Bank at 344 North Charles Street in Baltimore, MD. The man approached the teller and gave her a small bouquet of flowers and a note that stated, "give me all the money, no dye packs and don't push that button." The teller gave money to the robber, who fled south on Charles Street on foot. The teller described the male as 5'6" tall, with a slim build and braces on his teeth, wearing a baseball cap, gray t-shirt, dark colored shorts, and tennis shoes.
Shortly after the robbery, Detective Dennis Gunther saw a man matching the description of the robbery suspect. The man, who was riding a bicycle, was heading south on Charles Street at a high rate of speed. Although Detective Gunther temporarily lost sight of the suspect, he spotted the suspect again at the corner of Harlem and Arlington Avenues, before losing sight of him for good.
Police suspected that the individual responsible for the Carrolton Bank robbery was also responsible for four other robberies — three in Baltimore County and one additional robbery in Baltimore City. The description of the robber and the wording of the notes were similar in all five robberies.
On July 17, 2000, law enforcement officers arrested Pharez Prince at 9220 Smith Avenue for a probation violation. Prince had barricaded himself in 9220 Smith Avenue; after a five-hour standoff, the police finally arrested him. Baltimore City Robbery Detectives Phil Wood and Sarah Ward received notification of the arrest because (i) the description of Prince closely matched the description of the robbery suspect and (ii) one of the robberies occurred approximately one mile from the Smith Avenue address.
Detectives Wood and Ward next investigated Prince's criminal history and discovered that Prince had a prior federal conviction for bank robbery. In a December 1992 bank robbery, Prince had used a note stating, "It's a gun pointing at you. Don't make no noise or push any buttons just [give][sic] me all the money."
After learning of Prince's prior conviction, Detectives Wood and Ward, accompanied by Special Agent William Perkins of the FBI, went to 9220 Smith Avenue on July 19, 2000. The detectives spoke with the caretaker, who said that Prince did not live at the Smith Avenue residence, but did stay there occasionally. The caretaker consented to a search.
The search of 9220 Smith Avenue uncovered two gray t-shirts, one pair of black tennis shoes, and a set of false teeth with braces. In the affidavit, Detective McDermott stated, "[t]his property is believed to be worn by Prince during the commission of the 10 July 2000 bank robbery of Carrolton Bank. . ."
After investigating Prince's background, Detective McDermott learned that various records listed Prince's home address as 1219 W. LaFayette Avenue and that Prince owned a 2000 Plymouth. Detective McDermott stated that 1219 W. LaFayette Avenue is approximately two blocks north of where Detective Gunther last saw the robbery suspect on the day of the Carrolton Bank robbery.
At the end of the affidavit, Detective McDermott summarized, "In conclusion, based on the aforementioned facts in this Affidavit, Your Affiant believes that presently, evidence related to the armed bank robberies is being kept, stored or hidden in the aforementioned premises and/or vehicle."
On July 19, 2000, Detective McDermott applied for a search warrant for Prince's house at 1219 W. LaFayette Avenue and for Prince's car. That same day, Judge Jack Lesser of the Baltimore City District Court reviewed the affidavit and issued warrants to search Prince's home and car. Officers executed the warrants on July 20, 2000.
II. Analysis A. Motions to Suppress Evidence
Prince seeks to suppress the items seized during the search of 1219 LaFayette Avenue and his car. Prince asserts that the affidavit does not establish probable cause to search because there is not a sufficient nexus between the items to be seized and the places to be searched.
The search of 1219 W. LaFayette Avenue uncovered: two letters ostensibly authored by Prince; a letter from the Office of Parole and Probation; an eyeglass receipt; and a photograph of a female. The search of Prince's car revealed: an envelope bearing both Prince's name and the 1219 W. LaFayette Avenue address; scotch tape; a fake scar; blank "Post-It" notes; plastic packaging for a fake mustache; a bank strap from Mercantile Bank; a container of black shoe polish; two paper towels marked with black shoe polish smudges; a plastic bag containing thread tape; a court document bearing Prince's name; a monthly probation supervision report; a receipt from Party City dated 6/26/00; and a car registration certificate and temporary tag.
To determine the validity of a search warrant, the reviewing court must ask whether the issuing judge had a "substantial basis for concluding" that probable cause existed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983). A reviewing court will accord great deference to the issuing judge's probable cause determination. See id. at 236.
Probable cause exists when there are sufficient facts for a prudent person to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. See Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727 (1984). Probable cause can be inferred from the circumstances at hand and the "nexus between the place to be searched and the items to be seized may be established by the nature of the items and the normal inferences of where one would likely keep such evidence." United States v. Anderson, 851 F.2d 727, 729-30 (4th Cir. 1988).
Prince contends that the facts in the affidavit are insufficient to conclude that evidence relating to the bank robberies would be found at 1219 W. LaFayette Avenue or in his car. After reviewing the four corners of the affidavit, this Court holds that Judge Lesser had a substantial basis to conclude that evidence of the bank robberies would be found at 1219 W. LaFayette Avenue and in Prince's car.
First, the affidavit sets out sufficient evidence that Prince was connected with the bank robberies, including the following facts: (i) the description of Prince closely matched the description of the man who robbed Carrolton Bank; (ii) Prince had a prior conviction for bank robbery; (iii) the note presented to the teller at Carrolton Bank was similar to the notes in the other four bank robberies and the note that Prince used when he robbed the bank in 1992; (iv) one of the robberies occurred close to the Smith Avenue address where Prince sometimes stayed; and, (v) when the police searched 9220 Smith Avenue, they found not only clothing that matched what the Carrolton Bank robber wore, but also a set of false teeth with braces. These facts, when viewed together, form a substantial basis to conclude that Prince was involved in the bank robberies.
The false teeth with braces are a highly unique item and, therefore, add strong support to the conclusion that Prince was the bank robber.
Second, the facts in the affidavit establish a nexus between the items to be seized and the places to be searched. The police were essentially looking for clothing and disguises. The most logical place to look for clothing would be a person's house and the facts in the affidavit establish that 1219 LaFayette Avenue was Prince's house. Furthermore, the police had already found the clothing and the false teeth at a place where Prince only stayed occasionally. Thus, there is an even greater probability that they would find more clothing or other evidence of the bank robberies in Prince's actual home.
The warrant application also states that the police were looking for a gun. Prince argues that the warrant is invalid because there is nothing in the affidavit to suggest that a gun was related to the bank robberies. Although the affidavit does not specify how a gun was used in the robberies, it does state in two places that the police were seeking evidence in connection with an armed robbery.
It was also probable that evidence from the bank robberies, such as clothing, would be found in Prince's car. People often keep clothing in their car. This is especially true in the instant situation, given that Prince sometimes spent the night at 9220 Smith Avenue. Because Prince was shuttling between two houses, it was even more likely that clothing would be in his car. Additionally, the bank robberies occurred at five different locations in Baltimore County and Baltimore City. This geographic spread increases the likelihood that the suspect used a car in connection with the robberies; consequently, it was likely that evidence would be found in Prince's car.
Even if the warrant were invalid, the good faith exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applies. The officers' reliance on Judge Lesser's probable cause determination was objectively reasonable. Id. at 922. The three-page affidavit contained more than a "bare bones" conclusion that Prince had evidence of crime at his house. See, e.g., United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 121-22 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding good faith exception did not apply due to the "bare bones" nature of the affidavit). Nor is there evidence that the officers acted dishonestly or recklessly in preparing the affidavit or executing the warrant. Leon, 468 U.S. at 926. Accordingly, Prince's motion to suppress is denied.
B. Motion for Notice of 404(b) Evidence
Prince also requests that the Court order the Government to provide him with advance notice if it intends to seek admission of Prince's prior conviction under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). The Government does not oppose this motion. Accordingly, on or before March 9, 2001, the Government shall inform counsel for Prince whether it intends to admit evidence of Prince's prior crimes and, if so, for what purpose.
It is so ORDERED this 6th day of March, 2001.