United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville
CHARLES R. SIMPSON III, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
federal grand jury indicted Earl Clayton III and his
co-defendant, Earl Clayton IV, for conspiracy to
“knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to
distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of heroin” in violation of Title 21, United
States Code, Section 841(a)(1). Indictment 1, ECF No. 14.
III moved to suppress all statements he made and evidence
obtained as a result of custodial interrogations that
occurred on November 24, 2015. Clayton III's Mot.
Suppress Statements 1, ECF No. 42. The United States
responded. United States' Resp. Opp. Mot. Suppress
Statements 1, ECF No. 44. Clayton III then moved to suppress
all evidence seized as a result of a search and seizure of
his vehicle and person that also occurred on November 24,
2015. Clayton III's Mot. Suppress Evidence 1, ECF No. 44.
The United States again responded. United States' Resp.
Opp. Mot. Suppress Evidence 1, ECF No. 45. Clayton III then
jointly replied to the United States' responses to the
motions to suppress. Clayton III's Reply 1, ECF No. 74.
magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on Clayton
III's suppression motions. Order 2/2/2017 1, ECF No. 62.
Clayton III and the United States filed post-hearing briefs.
Clayton III's Mem. 1, ECF No. 70; United States' Mem.
1, ECF No. 66. The magistrate judge recommended that Clayton
III's motions to suppress be denied. R. & R. 17, ECF No.
III filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation. Clayton III's Obj. R. & R., ECF No. 76.
For the reasons explained below, the Court will overrule
Clayton III's objections.
Standard of Review
Court makes a de novo determination of the proposed findings
or recommendations to which Clayton III objects. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3).
III appears to make two principal objections to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation. First,
Clayton III objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion
that the government had reasonable suspicion, supported by
specific and articulable facts, to seize and search him when
he drove away from Clayton IV's residence at 5100
Roederer Drive in Louisville, Kentucky. Clayton III's
Obj. 28-32, ECF No. 76. Second, Clayton III objects to the
magistrate judge's determination that law enforcement
gave him the required Miranda warnings. Id.
Whether the Government Had Reasonable Suspicion to Seize
Clayton III when He Drove Away from Clayton IV's
Residence at 5100 Roederer Drive
to Clayton III's first objection to the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation, the Fourth Amendment
to the United States Constitution prohibits
“unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const.
Amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative
stops of a vehicle when a law enforcement officer has
“reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime.”
United States v. Blair, 524 F.3d 740, 752 (6th Cir.
2009) (citing United States v. Sanford, 476 F.3d
391, 394 (6th Cir. 2007)).
suspicion requires the law enforcement officer to “have
a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the
particular person stopped of criminal activity.”
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18
(1981). This standard takes into account “the totality
of the circumstances-the whole picture.” Id.
at 417. A “hunch” does not give rise to
reasonable suspicion, but reasonable suspicion requires
“considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a
preponderance of the evidence and obviously less than is
necessary for probable cause.” Navarette v.
California, 134 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (2014) (internal
evasive behavior” may be one factor in determining
whether there is reasonable suspicion. United States v.
Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459, 466 (6th Cir. 2006). Likewise,
the suspect's criminal history may also be taken into
consideration in determining whether there is reasonable
suspicion, although criminal history, by itself, does not
give rise to reasonable suspicion. Joshua v. DeWitt,
341 F.3d 430, 446 (6th Cir. 2003). Determining whether
reasonable suspicion exists may also include “the
relevant characteristics of a location, ...