United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
matter before the Court is defendant's Motion to Reopen
the Suppression Hearing for Further Evidence regarding
defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence. (Doc. 44).
Defendant argues that an officer unduly prolonged the traffic
stop for the purposes of conducting a canine search of
defendant's car, in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
citing the Supreme Court's holding in Rodriguez v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015). On February 9,
2018, I held a hearing to consider additional evidence on the
motion to suppress. For the reasons that follow, I continue
to recommend that the Court deny
defendant's motion to suppress.
October 18, 2017, the grand jury charged defendant in a
one-count indictment with Possession with Intent to
Distribute Methamphetamine in violation of Title 21, United
States Code, Sections 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 851. (Doc.
2). The charge arose from evidence found during a traffic
stop of defendant's car on March 16, 2017. On November
28, 2017, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence from
that traffic stop. (Doc. 16). On December 15, 2017, I held a
hearing on the motion, at which Investigator Mitchell Magill
and Officer Chris Carton testified. On December 18, 2017, I
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the
Court deny defendant's motion to suppress. (Doc. 28).
January 12, 2018, defendant filed the instant motion to
reopen the evidence, asserting that since the hearing he had
discovered new evidence. (Doc. 44). The government resisted
the motion to reopen the evidentiary record. (Doc. 46). On
January 22, 2018, the Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States
District Court Judge, referred the motion to me. (Doc. 47).
On January 23, 2018, I entered an order scheduling a hearing
on the motion to suppress for February 2, 2018 (Doc. 49), but
at defendant's request (Doc. 51) continued the hearing
until February 9, 2018. (Doc. 52).
FINDINGS OF FACT
first Report and Recommendation, I made factual findings.
(Doc. 28, at 2-5). To establish context for the new evidence,
I will repeat my factual findings here.
Findings from First Hearing
night of March 16, 2017, Cedar Rapids Police Investigator
Mitchell Magill was on patrol in an unmarked police car as
part of a Mobile Assistance Team, which was tasked with
assisting in any crime that required investigation and
performing routine patrol duties. At approximately 9:00 PM,
Investigator Magill drove by defendant's residence on
18th Avenue SW, in Cedar Rapids. Investigator Magill saw
defendant's car parked outside. Although Investigator
Magill was aware of tips indicating defendant was involved in
distributing methamphetamine, he did not see anything that
made him believe that criminal activity was occurring at that
Magill then picked up his partner, Investigator Bryan
Garringer; at some point they drove past defendant's
house a second time and found that defendant's car was no
longer parked at the residence. The investigators observed
defendant's car a few minutes later on Wilson Avenue,
which was only a short distance from defendant's
residence. The investigators were able to eventually get
behind defendant's car as defendant drove down the
on-ramp to northbound Interstate 380. The investigators
followed in their car.
the course of the next few miles Investigator Magill was able
to use his trained observation and pacing to estimate
defendant's speed. Investigator Magill determined that
defendant was exceeding the speed limit by driving 68 miles
per hour in a zone with a 55 miles per hour speed
limit. When defendant exited the interstate at H
Avenue, Investigator Magill initiated a stop of
defendant's car by activating the lights on his patrol
car. Defendant pulled over in a timely manner. The stop was
made a 9:37 PM. Exhibit B.
Magill got out of his car, approached defendant's car,
and engaged in a conversation with defendant. Investigator
Magill asked for defendant's driver's license and
insurance and asked if defendant knew how fast defendant was
driving. Defendant admitted driving 61 miles per hour and
acknowledged knowing the speed limit was 55 miles per hour.
Investigator Magill looked at the insurance document provided
by defendant and saw that it was expired. Defendant looked in
his wallet and was able to produce an insurance card that was
not expired. Investigator Magill then returned to his police
car and, using his onboard computer, checked to determine if
defendant's license was valid, whether the car was
properly registered, and whether there were any warrants
pending for defendant. Investigator Magill verified that
defendant's license was valid, the car was properly
registered, and there were no pending warrants. Investigator
Magill was unable, however, to actually process a speeding
citation because his car's computer was not equipped with
the necessary program.
meantime, Officer Jacob Briley arrived at the scene as
backup. Officer Briley's police car was equipped with a
computer program for processing speeding tickets.
Investigator Magill used Officer Briley's computer to
process defendant's ticket. Investigator Magill logged
into the program at 9:40 PM to begin processing the
about the same time Investigator Magill began processing the
ticket, Investigator Garringer called for a canine unit to
come to the scene to conduct a free-air sniff. In response,
Officer Chris Carton arrived at the scene at approximately
9:48 PM. At 9:49 PM, Officer Carton retrieved his canine
partner from the car and spoke with Investigator Garringer.
Officer Carton then took his canine partner to the front of
defendant's car to begin the free-air sniff. Investigator
Magill had completed the paperwork in Officer Briley's
car at about this same time and asked defendant to step out
of his car so that the canine could perform its work. While
the canine conducted ...