353 F. Supp. 3d 697
M.D. Tenn.2018Background
- This is a multi-defendant RICO/drug prosecution; the Court resolved several pretrial motions for defendants Rex Whitlock and Marcus Darden after evidentiary hearings in November 2018.
- March 3, 2005: Clarksville officer Hurst observed a car (Whitlock driving) under a carport attached to 308 Glen Street; Whitlock assaulted Hurst and fled, was arrested ~300 feet away; officers later located a crack "cookie," marijuana, and scales in the Caprice's driver-side door compartment.
- Whitlock moved to suppress the March 3, 2005 evidence (arguing Fourth Amendment violation), sought unredacted witness statements, moved to dismiss Count II on double jeopardy grounds, and sought suppression of evidence from a federal Instagram-account search warrant.
- Darden moved to suppress two iPhones seized during his June 29, 2017 arrest (and to suppress his pre-Miranda admission of ownership), sought grand-jury testimony disclosure, and sought disclosure of confidential informants for recorded controlled buys.
- The Court held hearings: it granted Whitlock's suppression of the March 3 evidence (carport search/seizure), denied dismissal of Count II (double jeopardy) and denied suppression of the Instagram search, denied production of unredacted statements as moot; for Darden the Court denied suppression of the phones but suppressed his pre-Miranda ownership statements and denied his motions for grand-jury transcripts and informant disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of March 3, 2005 evidence (Whitlock) | Hurst/Love had lawful vantage to see contraband; plain view/automobile or exigent exceptions justify seizure | Whitlock: search/seizure violated Fourth Amendment because officers were in home curtilage and had no right to be in carport; no valid plain-view | Granted — evidence from Caprice suppressed; carport was curtilage, discovery not inadvertent and officers lacked right to be there |
| Production of unredacted witness statements (Whitlock) | Whitlock sought immediate unredacted statements | Government produced contact info and arranged interviews for consenting witnesses | Denied as moot — parties resolved except for limited contact info procedure |
| Dismiss Count II for double jeopardy (Whitlock) | Prior convictions/indictments (W.D. Ky. and N.D. Ga.) cover same conspiracy so prosecution barred | Government: current indictment alleges different time period, participants, scope, locations, and drug types | Denied — court finds conspiracies distinct under Sinito totality-of-circumstances factors |
| Suppression of Instagram-account evidence (Whitlock) | Warrant affidavit lacked probable cause; conclusory, relied on unidentified sources, failed to show evidence would be on account | Government: detailed 17-page affidavit including gang affiliation, postings while in custody, and nexus to RICO proof; magistrate review entitled to deference | Denied — magistrate's probable-cause finding reasonable under totality of circumstances |
| Seizure of cell phones (Darden) | Phones were unlawfully seized; cellphones are ubiquitous and not inherently incriminating | Government: phones discovered in plain view context near arrested suspect; lawful seizure under plain-view; alternatively incident to arrest (argued) | Seizure upheld (plain-view): denial; buying-of-phones lawful to seize for safekeeping |
| Suppression of pre-Miranda statements about phone ownership (Darden) | Admission of ownership occurred pre-Miranda and should be suppressed | Government invoked booking exception/argued non-custodial or routine questioning | Suppressed — Court finds questioning reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response; statements inadmissible |
| Grand-jury transcript disclosure (Darden) | Requested entire grand-jury testimony two months before trial under Rule 6(e) | Government asserted secrecy and lack of particularized need; discovery already provided | Denied — Darden failed to show particularized need outweighing secrecy |
| Disclosure of confidential informants (Darden) | Informant identities necessary because buys were one-on-one and only informant can corroborate/contradict | Government produced recordings, ROIs, and asserted security concerns; Roviaro balancing applies | Denied — Darden did not meet burden to show informant disclosure necessary; discovery already provided may obviate need |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness and exceptions to warrant requirement)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (plain-view doctrine framework)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-view rationale and related Fourth Amendment principles)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four-factor curtilage analysis)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018) (protection for curtilage and limits on vehicle searches tied to homes)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (search-incident-to-arrest scope and immediate control concept)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause totality-of-circumstances and deference to magistrate)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable-discovery doctrine)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and custodial interrogation rules)
- United States v. Sinito, 723 F.2d 1250 (6th Cir. 1983) (totality test for whether successive indictments allege same conspiracy)