Opinion
Case No. 1:03CR00128.
June 28, 2004
ORDER
Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress evidence obtained when police detained and searched his vehicle on May 1, 2003. An evidentiary hearing and oral argument occurred before the magistrate judge on April 5, 2004. After receiving supplemental briefing the magistrate judge issued his Report and Recommendation, which granted defendant's Motion to Suppress. The United States filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation on June 2, 2004. The Court hereby reviews the magistrate judge's decision.
BACKGROUND
At the suppression hearing before the magistrate judge, testimony was heard from three police officers; Todd Hardman, a detective with the South Ogden Police Department; Juston Dickson, a patrol officer with the Ogden City Police Department; and Kevin Shawn Grogan, an agent with the Weber/Morgan Narcotics Strike Force. (Tr. 5, 21, 38). Their testimony revealed the following facts, which are undisputed and adopted as findings of fact by the Court.
In approximately early March 2003, Agent Aaron Johnson, of the South Ogden Police Department, learned from an informant that methamphetamine was being cooked in the basement of a home belonging to James spell and/or his mother in Clearfield, Utah. After receiving this information, Agent Johnson visited the Spell home and conversed with James Spell who denied any wrongdoing but also refused to allow a search of the residence. (Tr. 23).
Continued suspicion of drug activity at the Spell residence prompted the officers to set up surveillance of the home on May 1, 2003. Officer Dickson was the first officer to begin observing the Spell residence at approximately 12:00 p.m., having been told beforehand by Agent Johnson that someone at the home was suspected of cooking methamphetamine. Once in position, Officer Dickson observed a truck pull into the home. Officer Dickson notified Agent Grogan and Agent Johnson about the truck's arrival, which prompted both agents to proceed to the Spell home. (Tr. 23) Agent Johnson, accompanied by Officer Dickson, effectuated a traffic stop on the driver of the vehicle when he failed to signal. (Tr. 32). The driver of the truck, Gerald Tipa, told the agents that he was not allowed into the basement of the Spell home but that he observed Mason jars being brought upstairs from the basement and that the individuals inside the home were cooking methamphetamine. (Tr. 42). A search of Tipa's vehicle revealed an empty bottle of ephedrine, a precursor to the manufacture of methamphetamine. (Tr. 23, 32, 42).
At this point, Agent Grogan began the process of obtaining a search warrant for the Spell residence. In doing so, Agent Grogan reviewed Agent Johnson's file of complaints made regarding drug activity at the Spell residence. Agent Grogan found that Lori Archuleta was one of the complainants. (Tr. 40). Agent Grogan called Ms. Archuleta at approximately 1:30 p.m. to ask her about her complaint. (Tr. 40). Ms. Archuleta stated that James Spell had been cooking methamphetamine in the basement of his home. Agent Grogan asked her if she believed that James Spell was still producing drugs in the basement, to which she responded in the affirmative. Agent Grogan inquired as to why she believed that methamphetamine was still being produced in the home and Ms. Archuleta stated that she and Gretchen Spell, James Spell's ex-wife, were friends and that she was informed by Ms. Spell that James Spell was still cooking methamphetamine in the residence (Tr. 41).
While Agent Grogan was preparing the search warrant affidavit, Officer Dickson returned to his surveillance of the Spell residence. Agent Grogan also requested that Agent Hardman begin surveillance of the residence. Upon Officer Dickson's return, he observed the presence of two vehicles, a Saturn and a Thunderbird, which were not at the residence prior to the pull-over of Mr. Tipa's truck. (Tr. 33). It was later determined that the vehicles belonged to Douglas Hurst and to Gretchen Spell. (Tr. 8). Agent Hardman arrived at approximately 2:30 p.m. and positioned himself in the kitchen of a home directly east of the Spell residence, which allowed him to observe the driveway and the rear and south side of the home. Upon his arrival, Agent Hardman also observed the Saturn and Thunderbird parked in the driveway. (Tr. 8) At approximately 3:30 p.m., one hour after Agent Hardman's arrival, Agent Hardman observed a red Buick pull into the driveway. The individual driving the Buick was later identified as the defendant, John Baker. (Tr. 9). Baker exited his vehicle and approached a basement window on the south side of the home; upon reaching the window Baker knocked. (Tr. 9). The window opened and Baker crawled inside the home. (Tr. 10). (It was later found that wooden stairs were constructed below the window to allow for ingress and egress). (Tr. 10). About 15 minutes later Agent Hardman observed another male individual, later identified as Douglas Hurst, exit the home from the same basement window, walk around the driveway as though he were attempting to ensure himself that the home was not being watched, and finally approach the garbage can in front of the residence to discard a bottle of HEET gas additive. (Tr. 12) HEET gas additive is a common ingredient used to manufacture methamphetamine. (Tr. 12). After dumping the HEET gas additive into the garbage, Mr. Hurst reentered the basement through the window. (Tr. 12).
Once Mr. Hurst returned to the basement, Mr. Baker came out of the basement window carrying large black or brown garbage bags, which he placed in his vehicle. (Tr. 13). He then returned to the window and was handed a cardboard box, which he also placed in his vehicle. (Tr. 13). At this point, Baker drove away from the Spell residence. Agent Hardman relayed his observations to Agent Grogan and Officer Dickson. (Tr. 13). Agent Hardman specifically contacted Officer Dickson in order for him to stop Baker's vehicle. (Tr. 13). As Baker left the Spell residence he proceeded in the direction of Officer Dickson's position and ultimately passed in front of him. (Tr. 25, 26). Once Baker passed, Officer Dickson pulled out behind him in his unmarked patrol car and began following him. (Tr. 26). Officer Dickson radioed Officer Zubal to effectuate the stop of Baker's vehicle because Officer Dickson's vehicle was unmarked and did not have police lights, (Tr. 26). Once Officer Zubal effectuated the stop, Officer Dickson approached Baker's car and asked him for his driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. (Tr. 27). Baker handed Officer Dickson his driver's license and then stated that he did not have proof of insurance. (Tr. 28). Officer Dickson ran a records check and discovered that Baker's license had been denied and that he had a warrant for his arrest stemming from a DUI in Clearfield, Utah. (Tr. 28). During his conversation with Baker, Officer Dickson observed the garbage bags and cardboard box, which Agent Hardman had previously identified and discussed with Officer Dickson. (Tr. 28). Once Officer Dickson learned of the warrant, Baker was read his Miranda rights, and was then searched incident to his arrest. (Tr. 29). Officer Dickson's search of Baker's person produced a small baggy of what appeared to be methamphetamine, which after field testing was determined to be so.
ANALYSIS
The detention of an automobile for investigative purposes constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and may only be done when the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the driver "is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity." Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 661 (1979); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 436-47 (1984); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979); In order for the stop to be in compliance with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an officer must under the "totality of circumstances" have a "particularized and objective basis" for making the stop. "[I]n justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968).
I. REASONABLE SUSPICION
It is undisputed that Agent Johnson received information regarding drug activity occurring at the Spell residence at least two-months prior to the surveillance of the residence, which took place on May 1, 2003. This information was reinforced by at least two informants. The first informant, Lori Archuleta, one of the original complainants, who submitted her claim in March of 2003, claimed that James Spell was cooking methamphetamine in his basement. Ms. Archuleta's complaint was reaffirmed on May 1, 2003, when questioned by Agent Grogan over the phone. Ms. Archuleta reaffirmed her statement that methamphetamine was being cooked in the Spell home, citing as the source of her information James Spell's ex-wife, Gretchen Spell.
The second informant, Gerald Tipa, was pulled over on May 1, 2003, approximately one to two hours prior to Baker's traffic stop. Mr. Tipa's stop occurred immediately after his visit at the Spell residence. Once stopped, Mr. Tipa stated to Agent Grogan and Officer Dickson that methamphetamine was being cooked in the Spell basement. Search of Mr. Tipa's car produced an empty bottle of ephedrine, a precursor to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Although Mr. Tipa was not allowed into the basement, he claims he witnessed Mason jars being carried down to the basement and affirmatively stated that methamphetamine was being cooked at the home.
Also beyond dispute are the observations of Agent Hardman. Agent Hardman witnessed Baker pull into the Spell residence, exit his vehicle and enter the home through a basement window. Agent Hardman then witnessed Mr. Hurst climb out of the basement window to discard a bottle of HEET gas additive, which is a common precursor of methamphetamine. It is undisputed that after Mr. Hurst re-entered the Spell residence, Baker exited the residence through the window carrying large black or brown garbage bags and placed them in his vehicle; he then returned to the window and received a cardboard box which he also placed in his vehicle. Agent Hardman then observed Baker leave the residence at which time Officer Dickson, who was in communication with Agent Hardman during his observations, radioed Officer Zubal to assist him in effectuating the stop of Baker's vehicle. Once stopped, a records check on Baker revealed that there was a warrant issued for his arrest, which allowed the officers to search Baker's person incident to his arrest.
The facts known by the officers at the time defendant's vehicle was stopped constituted reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal drug activity involving the defendant. See generally Terry, 390 U.S. at 20, 21; see also United States v. Eylicio-Montoya, 18 F.3d 845 (10th Cir. 1994). The defendant was not a mere passerby at the Spell residence. Upon his arrival he went not to a door but directly to a basement window through which he was immediately permitted entry. At that same time the officers were aware of considerable information that led them to reasonably believe methamphetamine manufacturing was occurring within the basement of the residence. Indeed, at the moment defendant went through the basement window into the home the officers had enough information to support and obtain a search warrant for the Spell residence. Under these circumstances it is difficult to imagine any other reasonable suspicion regarding the defendant than that he was knowingly associated with the drug enterprise, either as a buyer, a seller of precursors, a helper, a courier, or something else. It would be one thing if defendant had knocked on the front door, and had experienced a different kind of reception at the home. Then, perhaps, an explanation of innocent behavior would be at least on equal footing with suspicion of involvement with a methamphetamine drug business, but those are not the facts here. Stated succinctly, defendant went to a home which contained a suspected methamphetamine laboratory, entered the home through the basement window and then exited with garbage bags and a cardboard box. These facts coupled with the earlier stop of Mr. Tipa's truck, Ms. Archuleta's confirmation of continued drug activity at the Spell residence, and Mr. Hurst' discarding of the HEET gas additive all give rise to a reasonable inference of criminal activity involving the defendant. The Court therefore declines to follow the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Defendant argued, and the magistrate judge appears to have agreed, that the officers' stop of defendant's vehicle was made without a reasonable and articulable suspicion because the officers had no prior information regarding defendant or his vehicle. This assertion is hardly tenable, however in light of the information provided by the informants, the identification of the precursors to the production of methamphetamine and the defendant's entry into the home through a basement window and exiting with suspicious looking paraphernalia.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing the Court DENIES defendant's Motion to Suppress finding that the United States has established the threshold requirement of a reasonable articulable suspicion for effectuating the traffic stop. IT IS SO ORDERED.