Opinion
Crim. No. L-00-0330
February 27, 2001
MEMORANDUM
The Defendant, Darnell Williams, filed pretrial motions (i) to suppress, for lack of probable cause, all evidence seized pursuant to a search and seizure warrant for 2907 Glendale Avenue; (ii) to conduct a Franks hearing to determine whether the affidavit that Detective Michael Pratt submitted in support of the search and seizure warrant contained material misrepresentations and omissions; (iii) to order the Government to disclose the identities of the confidential informants; and (iv) to suppress two statements that Mr. Williams allegedly made without the benefit of Miranda warnings.
After the motions were briefed fully, the Court held evidentiary hearings on February 9, 12, and 23, 2001. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will, by separate order: (i) GRANT Williams' motion for a Franks hearing (which has already been held); (ii) GRANT Williams' motion to exclude his alleged statement that "she had nothing to do with it;" and (iii) DENY the other motions.
This ambiguous statement is excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
I. Background
In April 2000, Detective Michael Pratt became involved in the investigation of drug sales in the 2700 block of Tivoly Avenue in Baltimore City. As a result of his investigation, on May 31, 2000, Detective Pratt applied for a search warrant for (i) 2907 Glendale Avenue, and (ii) a 1998 Gray Honda bearing Maryland tag BJX-164. Pratt was looking for evidence that Williams was a drug supplier. Pratt's affidavit in support of the warrant application included the following facts:
During the month of April 2000, Detective Pratt received information from an unidentified source that a black male named Ronnie was storing quantities of narcotics at 2739 Tivoly Avenue for a black male named Darnell. The source had (a) seen Ronnie accepting cocaine from Darnell at 2739 Tivoly Avenue, and (b) seen Ronnie distribute drugs inside and outside the house. Detective Pratt stated that the source had proven reliable in the past.
Detective Pratt spoke with a second confidential informant, NED#498, who had also proven reliable in the past. NED#498 said that he/she knew a black male named Ronnie who was storing large quantities of drugs for a black male named Darnell. NED#498 stated that he had been present when Darnell arrived at 2739 Tivoly Avenue to give Ronnie a supply of cocaine. This informant had also witnessed other drug dealers enter 2739 Tivoly Avenue to get cocaine while Darnell was there. NED#498 told Pratt that Darnell drove a gray Honda, and that the last three numbers of the car's license plate were 164.
Detective Pratt next spoke with Officer Harold Dent. Officer Dent knew a black male named Darnell Williams (Date of Birth 8-6-1975) who, according to sources Dent believed reliable, was supplying narcotics to the 2700 block of Tivoly Avenue.
Detective Pratt got a photograph from Baltimore City Police Central Records of a Darnell Williams, born August 6, 1975, who had a criminal record and a photograph on file. Pratt showed the photo to both Officer Dent and NED#498. NED#498 advised Pratt that this was the Darnell who was supplying drugs in the area of the 2700 block of Tivoly Avenue. Officer Dent also said that the photo showed the man named Darnell, that according to Dent's sources, was distributing cocaine.
In April 2000, NED#498 called Detective Pratt to say that the full license plate of the gray Honda driven by Darnell was BJX-164, and that the car was then parked on the 2700 block of The Alameda. That same day, Pratt arranged to meet NED#498 to make a controlled purchase. After Pratt arrived in the neighborhood, he saw NED#498 on the 2700 block of The Alameda. The gray Honda was parked in an alley near NED#498. Pratt saw NED#498 talk to a black male, later identified as Williams.
After watching NED#498 walk through the alley, Pratt next saw the informant and Williams walk onto the front porch of 2739 Tivoly Avenue. Pratt saw the twosome enter the house. After a time, NED#498 left the house, returned to Detective Pratt, and handed Pratt drugs that, according to NED#498, he/she had just purchased from Williams. A subsequent lab analysis confirmed that the substance that NED#498 gave to Pratt was cocaine.
Pratt then checked with the Motor Vehicle Administration and determined that the gray Honda was registered to Antoinette Arthur of 2907 Glendale Avenue. The same evening as the controlled purchase, Detective Pratt saw the gray Honda parked in front of 2907 Glendale Avenue. Detective Pratt wrote that he saw the gray Honda parked in front of 2907 Glendale Avenue "on numerous occasions."
During the month of May, NED#498 told Pratt that Williams was still supplying cocaine in the 2700 block of Tivoly Avenue and was still storing narcotics at 2739 Tivoly Avenue. On May 30, 2000, Detective Pratt saw Darnell Williams driving the gray Honda in the 2700 block of the Alameda.
At the end of the affidavit, Pratt summarized:
Your affiant believes that sufficient probable cause exists that the narcotic laws of the State of Maryland are being violated at 2907 Glendale Ave. by Darnell Williams. Therefore your affiant pray that a search and seizure warrant be issued for the premise, person and vehicle named in the first page of the affidavit.
On May 30, 2000, Detective Pratt took the affidavit to Judge Emanuel Brown of the District Court of Maryland. Judge Brown reviewed the papers, apparently quite closely as each page of the affidavit bears Judge Brown's initials at the bottom. Judge Brown determined that there was probable cause to search both 2907 Glendale Avenue and the gray Honda; he issued the warrant on the same day.
On June 1, 2000, Detective John Ganovski obtained a search warrant for 2739 Tivoly Avenue based on information that a Timothy Miller was possibly storing drugs at that address. Ganovski was assigned to the same unit as Detective Pratt, but Ganovski was not working on the investigation of Darnell Williams. Ganovski's information was not included in Detective Pratt's affidavit.
1. The Search of 2907 Glendale Avenue
On June 1, 2000, the police executed the search warrant for 2907 Glendale Avenue. The following facts come from the testimony of Detective Pratt and two other officers who assisted with the execution of the search warrant — Agent James Harlee and Detective David Knight:
A detective in the Baltimore City Police Department, Harlee has the title of "Agent."
Prior to searching the house, the officers saw Williams and Arthur driving in the gray Honda. The police stopped the Honda on Harford Road in Baltimore City. Detective Pratt approached the Honda; Williams and Arthur got out of the car. According to Detective Pratt, he told Williams and Arthur that he had a search warrant for 2907 Glendale Avenue, and he advised the pair of their Miranda rights. In response, Williams said that he understood his rights but that "she [meaning Ms. Arthur] had nothing to do with this."
Williams disputes that Pratt read Williams his Miranda rights. Pratt testified that he advised Williams of his rights. His testimony is corroborated by the testimony of Agent Harlee and Detective Knight, who were on the scene. Williams and Arther testified, however, that at no time did the officers advise them of their Miranda rights.
Williams disputes that he made this statement.
The search team then drove back to the Northeast District Police Department, bringing Williams and Arthur with them. After processing Williams and Arthur, the search team, including Detective Pratt and Agent Harlee, drove Williams and Arthur to 2907 Glendale Avenue and searched the house.
The search of 2907 Glendale uncovered: (i) a small quantity of marijuana; (ii) approximately $5,800 in U.S. Currency; and an Astra nine millimeter luger semi-automatic pistol, loaded with sixteen rounds of ammunition. Agent Harlee testified that, after learning of the pistol, he told Williams "you lied — you said there was nothing here." According to Agent Harlee, Williams replied that he "purchased the gun on the street."
Williams also disputes that he made this statement.
2. Franks Hearing
Williams challenges the validity of the warrant to search 2907 Glendale Avenue on the grounds that: (i) the affidavit, as written does not establish probable cause to search; and (ii) the affidavit includes material falsehoods, misstatements, and omissions.Williams requested a Franks hearing to challenge the veracity of Pratt's Affidavit. In support of his request, counsel for Williams proposed to call three witnesses who would testify that Williams did not use Tivoly Avenue as a base of operations for drug trafficking. Because of this proffer, the Court granted the motion and convened a Franks hearing.
At the Franks hearing, Williams' counsel called five witnesses: Detective Pratt; Gloria Guy, the former owner of 2739 Tivoly Avenue; Ronald Roane, Ms. Guy's son, who formerly resided with her at 2739 Tivoly Avenue; John Traut, a licensed private investigator; and Williams himself.
The extensive questioning of Detective Pratt focused on the controlled purchase. Pratt's testimony included the following:
* The controlled purchase took place on April 28, 2000 at approximately 7:30 p.m., when it was dusk.
* While Pratt was watching the controlled purchase, he was inside a police cruiser with two to three other officers. Pratt cannot recall which officers were with him, but they were probably Agent Harlee, Detective Knight, or Detective Canada.
* When Pratt first spotted Williams, Williams was on the opposite side of The Alameda, approximately 120 feet away from the cruiser. Between the cruiser and Williams was a median strip, planted with trees that, given the time of year, were budding rather than in bloom. Pratt said he recognized Williams from a seven-year-old photograph that he had gotten from Baltimore City Police Central Records.
* Pratt saw Williams and NED#498 walk from The Alameda, through an alley, towards Tivoly Avenue. Pratt drove around the block and next spotted the twosome walking down Tivoly Avenue. NED#498 and Williams walked up the steps onto the porch of 2739 Tivoly Avenue. When Pratt saw Williams and the informant enter the house, he was parked abreast 2712 Tivoly Avenue, approximately 200 feet away.
* The same day as the controlled purchase, Pratt prepared an offense report describing the events that took place at Tivoly Avenue.
* Pratt did not learn about Officer Ganovski's application for a search warrant for 2739 Tivoly Avenue until after Pratt had obtained a warrant for 2907 Glendale Avenue.
The other witnesses testified, in pertinent part, as follows: Gloria Guy, the owner of 2739 Tivoly Avenue and mother of Ronald "Ronnie" Roane, testified that she did not know Williams and had never seen him before. She also testified that she was typically home from work on Friday nights by 6:15 or 6:30 p.m. Thus, she should have been home when the controlled purchase allegedly took place. Furthermore, to her knowledge, Williams had never been in her home, much less stored cocaine there.
The parties stipulated that April 28, 2000 was a Friday.
Ronald Roane also testified that he also did not know Williams. Roane said that he knew Antoinette Arthur because he sometimes washed her car. According to Roane, Williams never visited Roane's home and did not have a key to 2739 Tivoly Avenue. Roane did not store drugs at his house for Williams or anyone else.
Defendant, Darnell Williams, testified that he was familiar with the 2700 block of Tivoly Avenue because Ms. Arthur once lived nearby with her mother. Williams stated that he had never been inside 2739 Tivoly Avenue, did not store drugs there, and did not possess a key to the residence.
Private Investigator John Traut introduced into evidence a detailed, municipal street grid of Tivoly Avenue and The Alameda. He also introduced photographs that he had taken of the area.
In response to questioning by the Government, Detective Pratt testified that: (i) he is positive that Williams was the man who was with NED#498 on April 28, 2000, at the time of the controlled purchase; and (ii) he learned through his informants that most of the drug sales at 2739 occurred in the morning when Ms. Guy would have been at work.
II. Analysis A. Motion to Suppress Evidence
In support of his motion to suppress, Williams sets forth two main arguments: (i) the affidavit, as written, does not establish probable cause to search; and (ii) the affidavit includes materially false statements and omissions.
1. Probable Cause Based on the Four Corners of the Affidavit
Williams 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 place to be searched.
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).
Williams apparently concedes that the affidavit would support the search of 2739 Tivoly Avenue. Williams contends, however, that the affidavit contains no legally sufficient facts from which a judge could conclude that evidence of drug activity would be found at 2907 Glendale Avenue. Williams relies primarily on United States v. Lalor, 996 F.2d 1578 (4th Cir. 1993).
In Lalor, police obtained a warrant to search 1572 Waverly Way. The affidavit in support of the warrant stated that confidential informants knew of a man named "Jamaican John" who was selling drugs in Baltimore City and who lived on Waverly Way with his girlfriend. The informants also stated that "Jamaican John" drove a blue Dodge Daytona with a Maryland vanity tag, "Thumper." During a routine traffic stop of a Dodge Daytona bearing the tag "Thumper," the driver gave his name as John Lalor and his address as 1572 Waverly Way. Some three weeks after the traffic stop, the police arrested Lalor for possession of a handgun and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. When arrested, Lalor gave his address as 1509 Ramblewood Road. The day after his arrest, police officers applied for and executed a search warrant at 1572 Waverly Way.
The District Court found that the affidavit established probable cause to search the Waverly Way residence. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the facts and circumstances set out in the affidavit did not create a sufficient likelihood that evidence of crime would be found at 1572 Waverly Way.
The facts in the instant case are distinguishable from Lalor; there is stronger evidence that the residence to be searched would yield evidence of drug activity. Detective Pratt's affidavit includes proof that: (i) 2739 Tivoly Avenue was being used regularly as a stash house; (ii) Williams was regularly furnishing drugs to the 2700 block of Tivoly Avenue; (iii) Williams regularly used the gray Honda to transport the drugs; (iv) Detective Pratt personally observed Williams driving the gray Honda and using 2739 Tivoly Avenue as a stash house; (v) the gray Honda was regularly seen outside 2907 Glendale Avenue; (vi) Detective Pratt saw the gray Honda during the controlled purchase; and (vii) Pratt saw the same gray Honda parked in front of 2907 Glendale Avenue only a few hours after the controlled purchase.
The Fourth Circuit decided Lalor in 1993. Given the increasing sophistication of drug organizations in the use of stash houses, this Court questions whether the Fourth Circuit would reach the same decision eight years later.
Moreover, it is this Court's experience from presiding over drug cases that drug organizations have become increasingly sophisticated. To decrease the risk of detection, drug dealers frequently keep drugs, weapons and packaging materials in stash houses rather than in their own homes. These houses are frequently owned or rented by girlfriends, drug addicts or persons who agrees to lend their homes for this purpose in exchange for payments of drugs or money. Dealers also frequently drive cars titled in the name of relatives or friends. This does not mean that the police can search every house with which a suspected drug dealer has contact.
Under the facts set out in Detective Pratt's affidavit, however, a search of 2907 Glendale Avenue was justified. It was only common sense to follow the gray Honda back to the likely source of the drugs. This Court, therefore, upholds Judge Brown's determination that probable cause existed to search 2907 Glendale Avenue.
2. False Information
Williams next argues that Pratt's affidavit is flawed because it contains materially false statements and omissions. Williams contends that: the information about the controlled purchase is false; and Pratt should have included information in the affidavit about Officer Ganovski's investigation of 2739 Tivoly Avenue. Williams requests that the Court evaluate whether the affidavit establishes probable cause to search after: (i) excising the false information; and (ii) including the omitted information.
a. Controlled Purchase
Based upon the evidence presented at the Franks hearing, Williams contends that the information in the affidavit about the controlled purchase was untruthful. In support of this argument, Williams relies on the following contentions:
(i) During the controlled purchase, it would have been impossible for Pratt to have recognized Williams because of the low level of light and Pratt's distance from Williams and the informant.
(ii) Gloria Guy is an upstanding citizen and credible witness, who, given her work schedule, was likely at home at the time the controlled purchase allegedly took place. Furthermore, Ms. Guy testified that she did not know Williams and that she had never seen him in her house.
(iii) Ronald Roane, also a forthright witness, testified that he did not know Williams and that Williams did not use 2739 Tivoly Avenue as a drug storehouse.
(iv) Williams had innocent reasons to be in the Tivoly Avenue neighborhood because Ms. Arthur's mother lived there. To refute Williams' arguments, the Government relies upon the testimony of Detective Pratt, arguing that his testimony was consistent and credible. The Government further asserts that nothing about Pratt's testimony suggests that he intentionally included false information about the controlled purchase in the affidavit.
Although Pratt claims that there were two or three other officers in the squad car at the time of the controlled purchase, the Government has produced no witnesses to corroborate this fact. Pratt cannot recall exactly who was with him, but believes it was likely Agent Harlee, Detective Knight, or Detective Canada.
In response to Williams' motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informants, the Court requested that the Government produce at least one other officer who was with Pratt on April 28. After some investigation, the Government proffered that: (i) the records did not show who was with Pratt on April 28; and (ii) none of the officers had an independent recollection of being there.
Detective Pratt testified three times, thus providing the Court with ample opportunity to assess his demeanor and credibility. The Court credits Detective Pratt's testimony and finds it to be truthful. He testified in a candid and forthright manner and his recall of details was sound. Although Pratt observed Williams from a long distance, it was still quite possible that he was able to see Williams' facial features. Furthermore, the 1993 photograph of Williams, though seven years old at the time, still bears a strong resemblance to Williams now.
Although Gloria Guy was a credible witness, she cannot remember the exact events of April 28, 2000. She might have been home that evening or she might have been at work. Certainly her absence from the home would have given her son an opportunity to use the house to sell drugs.
It is impossible to reconcile the testimony of Williams and Roane with the testimony of Detective Pratt. While nothing in the testimony of either Williams or Roane was implausible or inconsistent, this Court found Detective Pratt's testimony to be more credible. As the Defendant, Williams did have a strong motive to exculpate himself. As a suspected drug dealer, Roane had a similar motive. Moreover, when Roane walked in the courtroom, Williams and Roane appeared to look at each other in a way that suggested that they knew each other. Despite this, the Court's findings on the credibility of Detective Pratt are based primarily upon the Court's assessment that Pratt was telling the truth.
b. Officer Ganovski's Warrant Application
Williams also argues that the affidavit should have included information that Officer John Ganovski applied for and received a search warrant for 2739 Tivoly Avenue based on information that Timothy Miller stored drugs at that location. The Court concludes that (i) the absence of this information was not an attempt by Detective Pratt to mislead Judge Brown; and (ii) the inclusion of the information would have bolstered, rather than undercut, probable cause to search 2907 Glendale Avenue.
First, Detective Pratt testified, and the Court accepts, that he learned of Officer Ganovski's investigation only after Pratt had applied for and received the warrant to search 2907 Glendale Avenue. Thus, Pratt was not trying to mislead Judge Brown by intentionally omitting key information. Even if Detective Pratt had included this information in the affidavit, it only bolsters the allegation that 2739 Tivoly Avenue was a storehouse for neighborhood drug suppliers.
B. Motion to Suppress Statements
Williams seeks to suppress the statements he allegedly made on June 1, 2000 on the grounds that he did not receive Miranda warnings and that he did not make the statements. According to the testimony of Detective Pratt and Agent Harlee, Williams stated: (i) "she had nothing to do with this;" and (ii) that he "purchased the gun on the street."
The voluntariness of Williams' alleged statements is not in dispute.
As an initial matter, the Court will exclude Williams' statement that "she had nothing to do with this." Because of its vagueness, the statement is of limited probative value. The potential prejudice to Williams is great, however, as the statement permits the jury to question what other criminal activity Williams might have been involved in. The Court will, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, exclude the statement.
The remaining issue is whether the officers gave Miranda warnings to Williams before he made his second statement about the gun. At the hearing, Detective Pratt, Agent Harlee, and Detective David Knight all testified that Detective Pratt advised Williams of his Miranda rights immediately after Williams got out of the gray Honda.
There was evidence, however, that undercut Pratt's testimony. On cross-examination, Pratt admitted that he filed two police reports stating that he gave Miranda warnings only after he took Williams and Arthur to the Northeast District Police Station. In addition, both Antoinette Arthur and Williams were called as witnesses and both testified that they never received Miranda warnings.
The Court credits the testimony of Detective Pratt, Agent Harlee, and Detective Knight that Pratt informed Williams of his Miranda rights when Williams first stepped out of the gray Honda. Pratt explained that he was mistaken when he wrote the time of the warnings in the first report. When Pratt prepared the second report, he copied the incorrect information from the first report.
Additionally, Pratt testified that he prepared a supplemental report, which correctly states that he delivered the Miranda warnings when Williams first left the Honda.
Moreover, Miranda warnings have become such a stable of routine police procedure, it is unlikely to the Court that such experienced officers would have omitted them. Because Pratt properly advised Williams of his Miranda rights, the Court will not suppress Williams' statement.
Williams testified at the hearing that even though he had not received Miranda warnings, he knew what his rights were and he was not fearful when he and the police were in the dining room at 2907 Glendale Avenue.
Although there was a gap between when Detective Pratt gave the warnings and when Williams made his statement in the dining room of Glendale Avenue, that gap is not fatal. See United States v. Frankson, 83 F.3d 79, 83 (4th Cir. 1996).
C. Motion to Disclose Identity of Confidential Informants
Williams argues that because there is a question about the truthfulness of Pratt's affidavit, the Government should disclose the identity of NED#498 so he/she could be subpoenaed to testify at the Franks hearing. It is a matter within the Court's discretion whether to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. Under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in United States v. Roviaro, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), the Court must balance the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense. See id. at 62.The following facts weigh against disclosure: (i) NED#498 is still being used in ongoing investigations; (ii) there is at least one other case, pending trial, where police used NED#498; (iii) the identity of NED#498 is not readily known in the Tivoly Avenue neighborhood; and (iv) the informant was used for the limited purpose of obtaining a search warrant and had no involvement in the crime with which Williams is charged. See United States v. Gray, 47 F.3d 1359, 1363 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the Court will not order the Government to disclose the identity of NED#498.
These facts come from the testimony of Detective Pratt, who stated that NED#498 is a current informant. The Government submitted corroborating information, which the Court placed under seal.
It is so ORDERED this 27th day of February, 2001.