United States v. Shakur

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. MACHAVALLIA MUTULU SHAKUR, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division

Date published: Jul 20, 2020

CRIMINAL NO. 2:19cr76 (E.D. Va. Jul. 20, 2020)

Opinion

CRIMINAL NO. 2:19cr76

07-20-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. MACHAVALLIA MUTULU SHAKUR, Defendant.

Rebecca Beach Smith Senior United States District Judge

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress ("Motion"), filed on January 10, 2020. ECF No. 38. The United States filed a Response opposing the Motion on January 23, 2020. ECF No. 40. The court held a hearing on the Motion on March 6, 2020. ECF No. 46. On April 3, 2020, the court entered an Opinion granting the Motion and suppressing the evidence obtained from the car and the Defendant's person during the January 17, 2018, traffic stop. ECF No. 54. The court subsequently entered an Order staying the Opinion pending a hearing to further develop the record on a remaining matter. ECF No. 58. The court also entered a Notice informing the parties that the hearing would focus on the automobile exception and inevitable discovery doctrine. ECF No. 65.

The court held a hearing on June 25, 2020, and heard further argument on the remaining issues. ECF No. 68. The parties did not present any additional evidence at the hearing. On July 1, 2020, the parties submitted supplemental memoranda with additional authorities, as permitted by the court at the hearing. ECF Nos. 70, 72.

Having heard the parties' arguments at the hearing and having reviewed the supplemental authorities, the court finds that the United States has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that inevitable discovery applies in this case.¹ Particularly relevant to this finding is the fact that there is no evidence in the record of a Norfolk Police Department policy or practice of impounding the cars of defendants who committed the same traffic offenses as the Defendant. To the contrary, the officer testified at the first hearing that, based on the traffic violations alone, he would not have arrested the Defendant or impounded the car. ECF No. 67 at 59-60.

1 At the hearing, the United States conceded that the inevitable discovery doctrine would not apply, if the consent to search the Defendant's person was invalid, because there was no evidence in the record regarding a policy or practice, or even the officer's intent, to arrest the Defendant and impound and search his car. As the court found in the Opinion, the consent to search in this case was invalid. See Opinion at 16, ECF No. 58.

At the hearing, the United States reiterated its earlier argument that the consent to search was valid, and stated that, as a general matter, police officers can ask for consent to search any driver with no cause during a valid traffic stop. However, in this case, the purported purpose of the traffic stop had ended and the officer had no plans to pursue it further through the issuance of a traffic citation.² See Opinion at 4, ECF No. 58. The court finds no reason to amend or alter its previous finding that the consent to search in this case was invalid, because it occurred during an unlawful extension of the traffic stop. See id. at 16.

2 The court remains concerned that potential racial profiling may have occurred in this traffic stop, as the traffic stop involved a broken tail light on an older model car driven by an African-American male, and it occurred during the afternoon near a "gun violence initiative zone." ECF No. 67 at 34-35. Moreover, the officer testified that he would not have extended the stop to ask about the presence of firearms if, for example, the stop had involved a female driver with three children in the backseat. Id. at 82. --------

Accordingly, the court LIFTS the stay imposed on its Opinion of April 3, 2020. The court DIRECTS the Calendar Clerk to set a date for trial. In addition, there is an outstanding Motion to Withdraw, filed by defense counsel on March 4, 2020. ECF No. 43. Defense counsel, with agreement of the Defendant, shall notify the court in writing within ten (10) days of entry of this Order whether they wish to pursue this Motion and, if so, shall contact the Calendar Clerk to set a hearing on the Motion. See ECF No. 67 at 120 (court's statement that the parties would "reconvene on the motion to withdraw after the Court has ruled on the motion to suppress").

The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to defense counsel and to the United States Attorney at Norfolk.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ _________

Rebecca Beach Smith

Senior United States District Judge July 20, 2020