United States v. Phillips
146 F. Supp. 3d 837
E.D. Mich.2015Background
- Defendant Sonny Lamarr Phillips was arrested on Sept. 8, 2014 after Detroit officers observed him walking toward a parked SUV and (allegedly) saw the handle of a handgun in his vest; he fled and a handgun fell from his person during the flight.
- Officers chased, cornered, handcuffed and detained Phillips; he was placed in the back of a marked scout car equipped with video/audio and later transported to the Detroit Detention Center.
- While detained but before Miranda warnings, officers asked a single street question about whether Phillips had a Concealed Pistol License (CPL); Phillips answered “no.”
- During transport (with all three officers present) officers asked administrative/biographical questions (age) and also asked about criminal history and the location of the discarded vest; Miranda warnings were not given before these latter questions.
- Government disclosed an expert forensic examiner (Robert Koteles Jr.) who would testify there was insufficient latent print on the gun to compare to Phillips and that, in his experience, obtaining a usable fingerprint on a handgun is usually less than 5%.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppress evidence found during seizure (gun dropped during flight) | Govt: gun abandoned during flight is not the product of a Fourth Amendment seizure | Phillips: police lacked reasonable suspicion for Terry stop, so seizure and subsequent evidence should be suppressed | Denied — under Hodari D., the gun was abandoned while fleeing and not the fruit of a seizure, so Fourth Amendment suppression not warranted |
| Exclude expert fingerprint testimony / Daubert hearing | Govt: provided Rule 16 disclosure and expert CV; testimony limited to expert's experience | Phillips: disclosure insufficient under Rule 16(a)(1)(G) and FRE 702; requests Daubert hearing and bases for statistic ("<5%") | Denied — disclosure + CV sufficed; expert may testify about his personal experience and probability observations; no initial Daubert hearing required, but objections may be renewed if testimony exceeds scope |
| Suppress oral statements (Miranda) | Govt: street questioning and some on-scene questions were non-custodial or administrative and admissible; booking exception applies to biographical questions | Phillips: no Miranda warnings given; all custodial/interrogative statements should be suppressed | Granted in part / Denied in part — single on-scene question about CPL was non-custodial (Miranda not required); volunteered exclamations while alone in car admissible; but custodial interrogation questions during transport about criminal history and location of vest required Miranda and those answers are suppressed for the government's case-in-chief |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (abandoned evidence during flight not fruit of seizure)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (flight as factor supporting reasonable suspicion)
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (motions in limine practice)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert admissibility standard)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (trial court gatekeeping discretion re experts)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (stop-and-frisk / investigative detention)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (Miranda and traffic/Terry stops)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (definition of interrogation for Miranda)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (voluntary statements and Miranda waiver; exclusion in gov’t case-in-chief)