Opinion
CRIMINAL 1:24-CR-9
07-03-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER ALONSO GALINDO, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS [ECF NO. 28] BE DENIED
MICHAEL JOHN ALOI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge is a Motion to Suppress Evidence [ECF No. 28] filed by Defendant Alexander Galindo (“Defendant”) on April 8, 2024. By Referral Order dated April 9, 2024 [ECF No. 30], the Hon. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief United States District Judge, referred the motion to the undersigned for conducting a hearing and entering a report and recommendation as to disposition of the motion.
The Court also is in receipt of the Government's response to Defendant's motion, filed on April 12, 2024. [ECF No. 31]. The undersigned conducted a hearing on Defendant's motion on June 25, 2024, at which appeared Defendant, in person and by and through his counsel, Katy J. Cimino, and appeared the Government, by and through its counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Brandon S. Flower. At that hearing, the Court heard witness testimony and the arguments of counsel.
Based on a detailed review of Defendant's motion [ECF No. 28], the Government's response [ECF No. 31], and the testimony and argument given at the above-noted hearing, and after a thorough review of the record herein and pertinent legal authority, the undersigned now respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendant's motion [ECF No. 28] be DENIED as set forth herein.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant stands charged in a one-count indictment which a Grand Jury returned against him on March 5, 2024. [ECF No. 1]. Defendant is charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8).
On January 31, 2023, a vehicle was observed by West Virginia State Troopers Tyquan Roach (“Roach”) and Devon Goodman (“Goodman”) as they were returning to their detachment. The troopers observed the vehicle remaining stationary at a green traffic light for approximately 15 to 20 seconds before driving away. The troopers decided to follow the vehicle and, after watching it remain stationary for approximately five seconds at a different green light, stopped the vehicle.
The vehicle and the troopers pulled into a Go-Mart gas station, and the troopers approached the car. The driver, the Defendant in this case, was unable to recall the location of his operator's license or vehicle registration when Roach asked for them. Roach observed Defendant's nervous behavior and ordered Defendant out of the vehicle. Roach performed a patdown search of Defendant's person, discovering a sharpie permanent marker, pills, and drug paraphernalia. Defendant stated he was a frequent user of drugs. The troopers conducted a search of the vehicle, finding more drugs and drug paraphernalia, as well as a firearm. Defendant was arrested.
Defendant challenges the validity of the stop and thus subsequent patdown search. In particular, Defendant argues that the delayed movement on the green lights was not a sufficient basis of probable cause for Roach to pull him over. Defendant additionally argues that the frisk was unconstitutional as Roach possessed no objective reason to believe Defendant was armed and dangerous to require a frisk search. The Government argues, however, that both delayed stops were probable cause of a traffic violation that served as the legitimate basis for the stop. The Government also argues that Defendant displayed visible and objective signs of nervousness such that the troopers were justified in frisking for officer safety.
II. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE
During the aforementioned suppression hearing on June 25, 2024, the Court heard sworn testimony from two witnesses, namely, (1) Roach, and (2) Goodman. The Court also received into evidence the following:
1. Government's Exhibit 1 -Roach's bodycamera video footage;
2. Government's Exhibit 1-A [ECF No. 40-1] - a still photograph from the footage of Roach's bodycam;
3. Government's Exhibit 1-B [ECF No. 40-2] - a still photograph of Defendant's vehicle;
4. Government's Exhibit 1-C [ECF No. 40-3] - a still photograph of Defendant's vehicle;
5. Government's Exhibit 1-D [ECF No. 40-4] - a still photograph of Defendant in his vehicle;
6. Government's Exhibit 1-E [ECF No. 40-5] - a still photograph of Defendant in his vehicle;
7. Government's Exhibit 1-F [ECF No. 40-6] - a still photograph of troopers opening driver's side door of Defendant's vehicle;
8. Government's Exhibit 1-G [ECF No. 40-7] - a still photograph of troopers removing Defendant from his vehicle;
9. Government's Exhibit 1-H [ECF No. 40-8] - a still photograph of pipe-like object found on Defendant's person;
10. Government's Exhibit 1-I [ECF No. 40-9] - a still photograph of the interior of the driver's side of the Defendant's vehicle;
11. Government's Exhibit 1-J [ECF No. 40-10] - a still photograph of the interior of the driver's side of the Defendant's vehicle;
12. Government's Exhibit 1-K [ECF No. 40-11] - a still photograph of the interior of the front of the Defendant's vehicle with bag;
13. Government's Exhibit 1-L [ECF No. 40-12] - a still photograph of the interior of the front of the Defendant's vehicle with bag of white substance;
14. Government's Exhibit 2-A [ECF No. 40-13] - a screenshot of Google Maps;
15. Government's Exhibit 2-B [ECF No. 40-14] - a screenshot of Google Maps;
16. Government's Exhibit 2-C [ECF No. 40-15] - a screenshot of Google Maps;
17. Government's Exhibit 2-D [ECF No. 40-16] - a screenshot of Google Maps;
18. Government's Exhibit 2-E [ECF No. 40-17] - a screenshot of Google Maps;
19. Defendant's Exhibit 1 [ECF No. 40-18] - West Virginia State Code §17C-3-4; and
20. Defendant's Exhibit 2 [ECF No. 40-19] - Trooper Roach's police report.
A. Roach's Testimony - Direct Examination
The Government called Roach to testify. According to his testimony, Roach testified that he currently is employed with the West Virginia State Police as a trooper since August 2022. [9:35:55 to 9:36:22]. Prior to working for the West Virginia State Police, Roach worked as a West Virginia University police officer for a year. [9:36:24 to 9:37:12]. When Roach joined the state police, he attended new training that concluded in November 2022. [9:37:15 to 9:37:51]. When this training concluded, he was assigned to the Bridgeport detachment as a lower-level trooper. [9:37:52 to 9:38:20].
The citations here to times in brackets correspond to the times of the Court's archived audio recording of the suppression hearing on June 25, 2024, which is located on the section of the Court's intranet site for FTR recordings.
When Roach first joined the Bridgeport detachment, he was assigned to work with a field training officer, referred to colloquially as a “boot.” [9:38:20 to 9:38:42]. Roach was assigned to a field training officer in November 2022, namely, Goodman, a senior trooper. [9:38:46 to 9:38:53]. Goodman's role as a training officer was to teach Roach the procedures of the state police. [9:39:00 to 9:39:21]. This boot period lasted for approximately 16 weeks [9:39:22 to 9:39:31]. During this time, Roach and Goodman were “connected at the hip.” [9:39:21 to 9:39:45].
On the evening of January 31, 2023, Roach and Goodman were working the night shift, from 2:00 p.m. to midnight. [9:40:02 to 9:40:15]. The first hours of their shift were spent on paperwork. [9:40:18 to 9:40:34]. The rest of the time was spent in the field at various checkpoints that Roach needed to complete for his training. [9:40:35 to 9:40:47]. Later that evening, at approximately 8:45 p.m., Roach and Goodman were on patrol. [9:40:48 to 9:40:59]. At this time, they were coming from Shinnston and heading towards their detachment. [9:41:00 to 9:41:46]. The Bridgeport detachment is located near Meadowbrook Road. [9:41:47 to 9:41:52]. Roach stated that at this time, the evening was dark, cold, and not snowing. [9:41:54 to 9:42:21].
Roach described the area of Meadowbrook Road. This description included the intersections leading out from a shopping mall (“mall exit”), the intersection of Meadowbrook Road and Barnett Run Road (“Barnett Run intersection”), the intersection for the exit and entrance onto I-79 southbound (“southbound intersection”), the intersection for the exit and entrance onto I-79 northbound (“northbound intersection”), and the intersection between Go-Mart and Johnson Avenue (“Go Mart intersection”). [9:42:22 to 9:43:39]. He further described where Meadowbrook Road turns into Johnson Avenue and confirmed that they were essentially the same uninterrupted physical road. [9:43:40 to 9:44:07].
The Government published its Exhibit 2-A. [9:44:09 to 9:44:14]. Roach identified the image as a satellite view of Meadowbrook Road as it becomes Johnson Avenue. [9:44:32 to 9:44:53]. Roach identified the Simpson Creek covered bridge on Government's Exhibit 2-A. [9:45:29 to 9:45:39]. He stated that the Bridgeport state police detachment was located in that same area. [9:45:39 to 9:45:55]. Roach identified the five stoplights that were present on the road, the intersections they served, and their locations on Government's Exhibit 2-A. [9:45:56 to 9:47:40]. He confirmed that Government's Exhibit 2-A depicted the area relevant to the investigation of the present case. [9:47:40 to 9:47:46].
Roach stated he was the driver of the police vehicle, with Goodman in the passenger seat. [9:48:10 to 9:48:29]. He stated that the vehicle he was driving, and all state police vehicles, are not equipped with dash cameras. [9:48:30 to 9:48:39]. He was wearing an operational, functional body camera. [9:48:40 to 9:48:48]. Roach once again confirmed his travel plan was to go from Meadowbrook Road to the Bridgeport detachment. [9:48:50 to 9:49:01]. The Government published its Exhibit 2-B. [9:49:04 to 9:49:07]. Roach confirmed Government's Exhibit 2-B showed the same area as Government's Exhibit 2-A, but from a different perspective. [9:49:10 to 9:49:53].
As they arrived at the mall exit intersection, Roach notified Goodman that he observed a stationary vehicle with its brake lights illuminated, situated at a green traffic light. [9:50:10 to 9:51:22].
Roach stated that the Meadowbrook stoplights stay green longer during the evening hours. [9:51:24 to 9:52:04]. Roach further stated his view of the mall exit intersection was unobstructed from his vantage point. [9:52:08 to 9:52:52]. He had a clear, unobstructed view of the stationary vehicle and observed no other traffic in the area. [9:52:53 to 9:53:06]. Once the vehicle began to move, Roach stated that Goodman told him to speed up to keep pace with the vehicle. The two began to discuss possible traffic violations that may have occurred. [9:53:07 to 9:53:37].
Starting from when Roach first observed the vehicle, the vehicle remained still for approximately 15 to 20 seconds. [9:53:38 to 9:54:20]. Once the vehicle began to move, Roach began to follow the vehicle instead of returning to the detachment. [9:54:20 to 9:54:27]. Roach caught up to the vehicle at the stoplight near the northbound intersection. [9:54:27 to 9:54:52].
The Government published its Exhibit 2-C. [9:55:00 to 9:55:11]. Roach identified the Government's Exhibit 2-C as a depiction of the location where Meadowbrook Road becomes Johnson Avenue. [9:55:13 to 9:55:23].
Roach followed the vehicle to the northbound intersection, where he recorded the license plate on the vehicle at a red light. [9:55:25 to 9:55:56]. Roach stated he did not believe it was normal for someone to pause at a green light, and discussed with Goodman if it could be a violation or if it were a sign of impairment. [9:55:57 to 9:56:29]. Roach believed that it was a violation of failing to obey a traffic control device under West Virginia Code §17C-3-4a. [9:56:30 to 9:56:54]. This intersection was at Johnson Avenue and the 1-79 northbound entrance/exit ramps. [9:56:55 to 9:57:24]. When Roach arrived at the light, he observed the light turn green and, again, observed the vehicle remain stationary, this time for approximately three to four seconds. Id. When the vehicle began to move, Roach activated his siren and lights. Id. At this time, Roach did not observe any other vehicles on the road. [9:57:25 to 9:57:36].
Roach stated that the vehicle had nowhere to pull off between the northbound intersection and the Go-Mart intersection. Thus, Roach and the vehicle pulled into the Go-Mart parking lot for the traffic stop. [9:57:37 to 9:59:33]. Roach informed dispatch of his location and the vehicle's license plate number, and indicated that he was performing a traffic stop. [9:58:12 to 9:58:45].
Roach identified the stopped vehicle as a black Toyota Corolla. [9:59:17 to 9:59:21].
The Government published its Exhibit 2-D. [9:59:53 to 10:00:01]. Roach identified Government's Exhibit 2-D as an aerial photograph of the west side of Meadowbrook Road. [10:00:02 to 10:00:22]. The Government published its Exhibit 2-E. [10:00:23 to 10:00:31]. Roach identified Government's Exhibit 2-E as a Google Maps image of Meadowbrook Road. Roach further identified it as the area where Roach first spotted the vehicle. [10:00:35 to 10:01:05]. Roach reaffirmed that his view was unobstructed. [10:01:06 to 10:01:11].
Roach stated that, from the area where he first observed the vehicle, one could not see the northbound intersection or the stoplight at that intersection. [10:01:11 to 10:01:21].
Roach stated that the weather was cold, with temperatures of approximately 15 to 18 degrees. [10:01:54 to 10:02:08]. During the stop, Roach observed that the vehicle was covered in frost, which made looking inside of it difficult. [10:02:09 to 10:02:34]. Roach made contact with the driver and stated there was only one individual in the vehicle, the driver. [10:02:40 to 10:02:46]. Roach asked the driver for his vehicle registration, his operator's license, and proof of insurance; the driver said he “had no idea” where these items were. [10:02:46 to 10:03:15].
Roach asked the driver to step out of the vehicle due to observing the driver making “lots of movements” after being told not to search around the car. [10:03:15 to 10:03:33]. Roach stated that he had safety concerns because of the time of night and his belief that the driver was not responding normally to his questions. Id. Roach elaborated that this belief was founded on the observation of the driver searching around in a vehicle he could not see into, and the driver's previous answer about the location of the operator's and vehicle's documentation. [10:03:34 to 10:04:01]. Roach stated that drivers are required to have the aforementioned documents available and to produce them upon request under West Virginia law. [10:04:01 to 10:04:30].
Roach stated the driver did not immediately exit the vehicle as asked. [10:04:31 to 10:06:02]. The driver asked why he was asked to exit the vehicle and Roach answered that it was because of the failure to produce the operator's and vehicle's documentation. Id. He was asked approximately five more times to exit the vehicle. Id. The driver complied when Roach and Goodman stated he would be removed from the vehicle if he did not comply. Id. Roach opened the door to the vehicle and observed the driver had his arms crossed, looking forward, and behaving uncooperatively. [10:05:33 to 10:05:50]. Once the driver exited the vehicle, Roach turned the driver's back to himself to comply with officer safety protocol. [10:06:02 to 10:06:28]. Roach asked if the driver had a weapon on his person or in the vehicle; driver answered he did not. Id.
Roach conducted a patdown search of the driver. [10:06:29 to 10:06:32]. Roach conducted a patdown search due to perceived officer safety concerns. [10:06:33 to 10:06:58]. He specifically stated not knowing the driver's name, a desire to confirm there were no weapons on the driver's person, the driver's failure to obey Roach's commands, and the driver's unwillingness to identify himself. Id. Roach confirmed that he still had difficulty seeing into the vehicle. [10:06:58 to 10:07:03].
Roach confirmed the reason for pulling the driver over was the failure to proceed at a green traffic light. [10:07:12 to 10:07:18].
At this point in the stop, Roach stood facing the driver's door while it was open. [10:07:21 to 10:07:38].
Roach did not possess any information about the driver's identity. [10:07:38 to 10:07:43]. Roach asked where the driver's identification was; the driver responded it may be at home or at other locations. [10:07:43 to 10:08:01].
At this point, Roach conducted the patdown search. In the driver's left pocket, Roach felt what he thought to be a folded pocketknife. He also believed he felt something sharp in a middle pocket of the driver's hoodie. [10:08:02 to 10:08:34]. Roach reached into the driver's pockets to find different objects. [10:08:36 to 10:08:42]. Roach found an extra-large flat sharpie permanent marker, a taped-up metal smoking device with a sharp edge on it, and a bag of assorted pills. [10:08:42 to 10:09:14]. Roach asked the driver what the pills were; the driver responded that the pills were Adderall. [10:09:16 to 10:09:24]. Roach stated that Goodman asked the driver if he had a prescription for Adderall. [10:09:24 to 10:09:27]. At this point, Roach stated the driver stopped speaking to him. [10:09:27 to 10:09:32]. Roach stated he found the pipe-like device in a pocket within the waistband pocket of the hoodie. [10:09:33 to 10:10:12]. Roach removed the pipe [10:10:13 to 10:10:18].
Roach questioned the driver about the objects found in his pockets. The driver informed Roach and Goodman that they would “find it all” and that the driver “smokes it all.” [10:10:20 to 10:10:50]. Roach asked what the driver smoked in the pipe; the driver answered that he smoked methamphetamine. [10:10:51 to 10:10:59]. Roach asked the driver when the last time he smoked was; the driver answered that it was couple hours before the stop. [10:11:00 to 10:11:13].
At some point, the driver identified himself as the Defendant. [10:11:13 to 10:11:34].
During the patdown search, the driver's side door was completely open. [10:11:37 to 10:11:46]. The open door gave Roach an unobstructed view inside the vehicle. [10:11:46 to 10:11:53]. Roach observed that a Ziploc bag with white powder was inside the driver's door in plain view. [10:11:54 to 10:12:31]. Roach removed the bag and placed it with the other items obtained in the search on the hood of the vehicle. [10:12:32 to 10:12:47]. Roach confirmed at this point that Defendant's given name was the only source of identification, and the vehicle's registration or Defendant's license had not been found. [10:12:49 to 10:13:05]. Roach escorted Defendant to the vehicle and informed him of why he was being detained. [10:13:05 to 10:13:30].
Roach conducted a field sobriety test due to the Defendant admitted to using methamphetamine, his behavior, and his being stationary at the green light. [10:13:30 to 10:13:58].
While Roach conducted the field sobriety test, Roach stated that Goodman was conducting a search of the vehicle based on the items found on Defendant's person and in the vehicle. [10:14:00 to 10:14:15]. After conducting the field sobriety test, Roach joined Goodman in searching the vehicle. [10:14:16 to 10:14:24]. During the search, Roach and Goodman located the Defendant's operator's license. Roach stated the license had a photograph and the name of the Defendant. When asked to identify whether the person depicted on the license was in the courtroom, Roach identified the Defendant. [10:14:25 to 10:15:13]. Roach also confirmed that the license listed a date of birth and provided the information to dispatch to check the validity of the license. [10:15:14 to10:15:41]. Roach also requested dispatch run a criminal history check on the license's owner. Id. Dispatch confirmed the license was valid. [10:15:43 to 10:15:52].
Roach stated that Goodman found a firearm in a backpack located on the passenger seat of the vehicle. [10:15:52 to 10:16:33]. The gun was loaded with one bullet in the chamber and its magazine was full magazine of ammunition. [10:16:33 to 10:16:59].
In their search of the vehicle, Roach and Goodman additionally found a variety of controlled substances, a cell phone, and multiple smoking devices. [10:17:00 to 10:17:50]. The controlled substances found were mushrooms, baggies of white powder that field-tested positive as fentanyl, substances that field-tested positive as cocaine, vape pens, suspected marijuana, and a variety of pills. [10:17:52 to 10:18:43].
During the stop, dispatch advised Roach that Defendant had a criminal history consisting of felonies, which prohibited the Defendant from possessing a firearm. [10:18:49 to 10:19:46]. Roach and Goodman collected the evidence gathered at this point and placed the assorted items into evidence bags. [10:19:47 to 10:20:02]. Defendant was arrested. [10:20:03 to 10:20:06].
Roach ultimately filed the following charges against Defendant: one count of unlawful possession of a firearm; one count of possession with intent of cocaine; one count of possession with intent of fentanyl laced with methamphetamine; one count of possession with intent of marijuana; one count of possession with intent of mushrooms; one count of possession with intent of alprazolam; and one count of possession with intent to distribute. [10:20:06 to 10:20:46]. Roach did not file charges against Defendant for the misdemeanor traffic offense that initiated the stop because of a standard practice of not filing misdemeanors with felonies. [10:20:50 to 10:21:36].
Roach stated that, ultimately, Goodman informed him there was a firearm discovered in the search. [10:43:53 to 10:44:08].
B. Roach's Testimony - Cross Examination
Defendant's counsel asked Roach if his testimony was that the Defendant was stopped at the green light on the Barnett Run Road intersection; Roach confirmed that was correct. [10:46:11 to 10:46:24].
Roach confirmed that the body camera footage does not show the Defendant being stopped at the Barnett Run intersection. [10:46:24 to 10:46:32].
Roach affirmed that he estimated that the Defendant was stopped at the green light for 15 to 20 seconds. [10:46:42 to 10:46:49]. He confirmed that the Defendant did eventually travel through the green light. [10:46:51 to 10:47:04]. Roach stated his body camera footage did not record any of the conduct he observed at the Barnett Run intersection. [10:47:04 to 10:47:15].
The Defense gave Roach Defense's Exhibit 1 to identify. Roach identified the exhibit as the state code for obeying traffic control devices. [10:47:30 to 1047:53]. Roach stated he has cited individuals for such a violation but did not cite the Defendant. [10:47:53 to 10:48:02]. Roach read a portion of the statute into the record. [10:48:02 to 10:48:29]. Roach confirmed that the statute did not specify a certain amount of time required to obey a traffic control device. [10:48:30 to 10:48:39].
Roach identified Defendant's Exhibit 2 as his incident report. [11:03:36 to 11:03:38].
Roach confirmed the section at page 49 was titled “Original Narrative,” which memorialized the facts of the incident. [11:04:02 to 11:04:12]. The original narrative of this report was four pages, from page 49 to 52. [11:04:12 to 11:04:21]. Defense counsel read aloud the following portion of the report:
The undersigned officer and senior trooper Goodman observed the suspect vehicle, a black in color Toyota Corolla bearing West Virginia registration NPD227 remain stationary at a green illuminated traffic control device. The undersigned officer observed the suspect vehicle remain stationary for several seconds as officers' vehicle approached the rear. The undersigned officer observed a very slow reaction from the suspect vehicle when driving through the intersection as well as when emergency lights were initiated.[11:04:22 to 11:05:05]. Roach confirmed he wrote this portion of the report. [11:05:05 to 11:05:08]. Roach confirmed that he did not mention Barnett Run Road or anything about Defendant sitting at a light on Barnett Run Road for 15 to 20 seconds. [11:05:09 to 11:05:23]. Roach confirmed the report only mentions observing a vehicle remain stationary for several seconds [11:05:23 to 11:05:30].
During the stop, when Roach could see Defendant's hands, he observed Defendant's hand moving towards his pocket, between the center console and his seat, and near the passenger seat.
At that point, Roach requested Defendant stop moving his hands. [11:07:35 to 11:07:48]. Roach stated that Defendant did not maintain eye contact except for the first couple seconds of the interaction. [11:07:59 to 11:08:23]. Roach could not see whether Defendant's breathing was rapid nor anything that would be unusual about his breathing. [11:08:24 to 11:08:41].
C. Roach's Testimony - Redirect Examination
Roach stated that believed it was unusual if a vehicle was stopped at a green light for an extended period of time. [11:14:23 to 11:14:33]. Roach claimed that a normal time would be three to five seconds. [11:14:34 to 11:14:48].
D. Goodman's Testimony - Direct Examination
The Government called Goodman to testify. According to his testimony, Goodman had been employed with the West Virginia State Police as a senior trooper since January 2019. [11:36:30 to 11:36:49]. Goodman testified that he is currently assigned to the Bridgeport Detachment of the West Virginia State Police. [11:36:50 to 11:37:00]. Goodman further testified that he was an assigned field training officer to Roach in January of 2023. [11:37:00 to 11:37:24].
Per Goodman's testimony, around 8:45 p.m. the date in question, he and Roach were conducting road patrol. [11:38:45 to 11:38:55]. They were coming from the area of Route 19 and heading towards the detachment. Id. They were near the area of Meadowbrook Road. Id.
Goodman stated that as they got close to their detachment, Roach saw a vehicle sitting at a green light. [11:39:14 to 11:39:30]. Goodman testified he saw the vehicle sitting at the green light, as well. Id. He explained that the traffic light was at the intersection of Meadowbrook Road and Barnett Run Road (“Barnett Run intersection”). [11:39:33 to 11:40:05]. Goodman was in the passenger seat, looking down at his mobile telephone; he then looked up and saw the stationary vehicle. [11:40:05 to 11:40:19]. Goodman said there was only one vehicle at the intersection and that the traffic light was green. [11:40:30 to 11:40:40].
The Government asked what Goodman did after Roach mentioned he saw the vehicle, and Goodman responded that he saw the vehicle and started to discuss with Roach the reasons as to why the vehicle may be stopped at the green light. The reasons included the possibility of an impaired driver and the possibility of a disabled vehicle. [11:41:02 to 11:41:24].
Goodman stated that, eventually, he and Roach initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle. [11:49:00 to 11:49:08]. Roach approached the vehicle from the driver side and Goodman approached from the passenger side. Id. Per Goodman, Roach made initial contact with the driver. [11:49:38 to 11:49:43]. Roach asked the driver for his vehicle registration and license. The driver did not provide them. [11:49:45 to 11:49:54]. Goodman saw the driver fidgeting and moving within the vehicle and Roach requested the driver to exit the vehicle, but he did not. [11:49:54 to 11:50:09]. Goodman testified that he had asked the driver to exit the vehicle twice and Roach asked about five times. [11:50:09 to 11:50:19]. After the driver was told he would be removed by the vehicle if he did not exit, the driver exited the vehicle after the driver door was opened. [11:50:19 to 11:50:36].
Goodman found a variety of controlled substances and a firearm in multiple bags around the area of the passenger seat of the vehicle. [11:52:45 to 11:53:10]. Goodman located the driver's operator's license in a backpack, along with a firearm. [11:53:15 to 11:53:32].
Goodman confirmed that his initial observation of the vehicle was that it was stationary for 10 seconds or longer at the green light. [11:55:00 to 11:55:45].
E. Goodman's Testimony - Cross Examination
Goodman indicated that Defendant eventually traveled through the green light of concern but failed to obey the traffic signal by sitting at the light when it was green. [11:56:55 to 11:57:11]. Defendant's counsel asked Goodman if a vehicle operator must obey a traffic light as soon as it turns green, and Goodman responded inconclusively. [11:57:12 to 11:57:26]. Goodman confirmed that he had not before cited anyone for that traffic offense. [11:57:26 to 11:57:33].
III. LEGAL ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Defendant's contention is that Roach lacked probable cause that a traffic violation had been committed and lacked reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. Further, there was no reasonable, articulable reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous. Therefore, Defendant argues that all of the evidence seized from Defendant and the vehicle during the traffic stop be suppressed. The Government argues that Roach had probable cause to conduct a traffic stop after Defendant committed a traffic violation. Further, because of officer safety concerns, Roach's patdown search of Defendant was reasonable.
The threshold issue here is whether Roach properly initiated the traffic stop for the stated reasons of the vehicle's failure to obey a traffic control device (the green traffic light as an indication to proceed). The undersigned FINDS that the stop was proper for that reason. As such, if the stop was lawful, then the undisputed facts otherwise show that the subsequent arrest, warrantless patdown of Defendant, and warrantless search of the vehicle (which yielded the firearm evidence in question) were lawful.
A. Legal Principles
As a threshold matter, the undersigned notes the well-established principle that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Moreover, for an arrest, “the general rule [is] that every arrest, and every seizure having the essential attributes of a formal arrest, is unreasonable unless it is supported by probable cause.” Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 700 (1981).
Further, longstanding caselaw provides that “[s]topping an autobile and detaining its occupants constitute a ‘seizure' within the meaning of the [Fourth and Fourteenth] Amendments . . .” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979). A law enforcement officer is permitted to stop a vehicle when the officer observes a violation of a traffic law - even if the officer may be motivated to conduct the stop for a different reason. See United States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 1993); Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996); United States v. Palmer, 820 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating a traffic stop is reasonable at the outset “whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. Without question, such a violation may include failure to comply with traffic laws.”) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
As for a stop for a traffic violation, the Court is to inquire “(1) if the stop was legitimate at its inception, and (2) if the officer's actions during the seizure were reasonably related in scope to the basis for the traffic stop.” United States v. Miller, 54 F.4th 219, 228 (4th Cir. 2022) (citations and quotations omitted). As to the first prong, an officer conducting a traffic stop must have probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred for the stop to be reasonable. Id. If there is no probable cause, a law enforcement officer may detain a person for a brief investigatory stop if there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 238, 245 (4th Cir. 2015). Under the second prong, the constitutional inquiry is “whether the detention lasted longer than necessary, given its purpose.” United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 336 (4th Cir. 2008).
In West Virginia, “[t]he driver of any vehicle.. .shall obey the instruction of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in accordance with the provisions of [Chapter 17C].” W.Va. Code § 17C-3-4(a).
“It is a cardinal principle that ‘searches 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.'” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390 (1978) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). It is the Government's burden to demonstrate that one of these exceptions applies. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455 (1971). Among those few exceptions to the requirement to obtain a warrant is the circumstance where the search of a person is incident to an arrest of that person. “[A] police officer who makes a lawful arrest may conduct a warrantless search of the arrestee's person and the area ‘within his immediate control.'” Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 232 (2011) (citation and quotation omitted). The policy behind this exception is to remove any weapons an arrestee may possess and to secure evidence. United States v. Davis, 997 F.3d 191, 195 (4th Cir. 2021).
Finally, well-established is the exclusionary rule - that a court should exclude evidence obtained by dint of law enforcement's unlawful arrest or search. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Relatedly, however, a court should suppress evidence in a criminal matter “only . where its deterrence benefits of exclusion outweigh its ‘substantial social costs.'” Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591 (2006) (citations and quotations omitted).
B. Analysis
In the case at bar, Roach properly initiated the traffic stop of the subject vehicle in which Defendant was the driver. Roach had probable cause that there was a traffic violation when Defendant failed to obey two traffic signals. Moreover, Roach acted reasonably when he decided to briefly detain and conduct a patdown Defendant.
1. Probable cause to stop for traffic violations
The issue here is whether Defendant being stationary at a green traffic light for an extended period of time, with no explanation for being stationary, gave rise to probable cause for a violation of traffic laws, such that Roach's stop of the subject vehicle was lawful.
“Probable cause is judged by an analysis of the totality of the circumstances . . . which are weighed ‘not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. Under this pragmatic, common sense approach, we defer to the expertise and experience of law enforcement officers at the scene.” U.S. v. Dickey-Bey, 393 F.3d 449, 453 (4th Cir. 2004) (citations and quotations omitted).
In the instant case, Roach credibly testified about how the vehicle in which Defendant was traveling caught his attention by being stationary at a green light at the intersection of Meadowbrook Road and Barnett's Run Road for approximately 15 to 20 seconds before eventually traveling through the intersection. Roach explained that once it caught his attention, he alerted Goodman who was sitting in the passenger seat. Goodman advised Roach to keep up the pace with the vehicle.
After passing another traffic light, Roach and Goodman observed the vehicle stationary at the next traffic light at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and the 1-79 northbound entrance/exit ramps. Here, the vehicle was stationary for approximately three to four seconds before accelerating through the intersection.
Although Defendant's counsel argues that there is no timeframe by which a driver must obey a traffic-control device (green traffic light), West Virginia traffic laws do not require such specificity for a violation to exist. West Virginia Code, noted above, simply requires a driver “obey the instruction of any official traffic-control device.” While it arguably is a subjective standard, Roach convincingly explained how he and Goodman perceived a violation of that standard. Just because there is no specified time by which a vehicle operator must obey a green light does not mean that there can be no violation of that law.
At bottom, the undersigned FINDS that Roach had probable cause to stop the subject vehicle because it was stationary at a green traffic light for an extended period of time, such that the vehicle operator failed to obey a traffic control device in violation of West Virginia Code.
2. Propriety of conducting patdown search
After conducting the lawful traffic stop, the patdown of Defendant was also lawful. The Supreme Court has held that law enforcement may order a driver to get out of a vehicle following a lawful traffic stop. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110-11 (1977); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 38-39 (1996); United States v. Stanfield, 109 F.3d 976, 978 (4th Cir. 1997). Further, “[p]olice may conduct a patdown search without a warrant if, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer has an articulable, reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity and that he is armed.” United States v. Raymond, 152 F.3d 309, 312 (4th Cir. 1998). “The reasonableness of the search is measured objectively. If a reasonably prudent person would believe that his safety, or the safety, or the safety of others, is endangered, he may conduct a limited search of outer clothing to discover any weapons.” Id.; see also United States v. Stanfield, 109 F.3d 976, 978 (4th Cir. 1997).
Here, Roach's persuasive testimony indicating that he was concerned for his safety was reasonable to justify briefly detaining Defendant and conducting a patdown. According to Roach's testimony (and as shown on the body camera footage), Roach initially asked Defendant for his identification and vehicle registration to which Defendant indicated that he “had no idea.” Roach requested these materials twice from Defendant. An officer may lawfully request a person's identification incident to a traffic stop and “[t]he failure of a vehicle's occupants to produce any sort of paper identification may heightened an officer's concerns.” United States v. Soriano-Jarquin, 492 F.3d 495, 500-501 (4th Cir. 2007). As the Government rightly argues, without such documents, Roach could not verify Defendant's identity, the existence of a valid operator's license for Defendant, the ownership of the vehicle, or whether the vehicle was properly registered and insured. As such, Defendant would not be permitted to further operate the vehicle and thus would need to exit the vehicle.
Furthermore, Roach testified that the after Defendant failed to produce the materials, Roach asked Defendant several times to exit the vehicle. A person's failure to comply with an officer's order, including to exit a vehicle, is a proper factor to consider when determining the reasonableness of a patdown search. United States v. Barnes, 153 Fed.Appx. 232, 235 (4th Cir. 2005).
In addition, Roach testified that because of the weather conditions, it was difficult to see the Defendant in the vehicle. Specifically, the windows were partially obscured by moisture. Roach also noted that the traffic stop was conducted around 8:46 p.m. and thus it was dark outside.
Roach also testified that Defendant's movements were a cause of concern. While suspicious motions can be a factor in the totality of the circumstances, the undersigned attributes more weight to the above-noted factors. However, the totality of the circumstances discussed above supports the reasonableness of Roach's patdown of Defendant. Thus, the undersigned FINDS that the brief detaining and patdown of Defendant were lawful.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned FINDS that there was probable cause to conduct a traffic stop. Further, the brief detaining and patdown of Defendant was reasonable and thus the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 28] be DENIED.
Any party shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation to file with the Clerk of the Court specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the United States District Judge. Objections shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page limitations, consistent with LR PL P 12.
Failure to timely file written objections to the Report and Recommendation as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Report and Recommendation to counsel of record as provided in the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.