United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Magistrate Judge Eric Long's Report and
Recommendation (d/e 27) that recommends denying Defendant
Keith Halliburton's Pretrial Motion to Suppress Evidence
(d/e 15). The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Long's Report
and Recommendation (d/e 27) and DENIES Defendant's Motion
to Suppress (d/e 15).
parties have stipulated to the facts in lieu of an
evidentiary hearing. See Stipulation (d/e 23). For
ease of reference, the evidence stipulation is again included
below in its entirety:
At approximately 2:45 PM on March 8, 2016, USPIS Josh
Bergeron (Insp. Bergeron) delivered the subject packages
while dressed as a United States Postal carrier. Insp.
Bergeron placed the boxes on the porch of the subject
premises after receiving no response from anyone inside the
residence. Officers in the area remained on surveillance. At
approximately 3:20 PM, officers observed a silver Volkswagen
arrive at the residence. The description of the sole occupant
of the vehicle matched the defendant's description.
Officers then observed the defendant exit the silver
Volkswagen, proceed to the porch of the subject premises and
pick up the subject packages. The defendant then stood on the
porch of the subject premises and examined the subject
packages before taking both packages back to his vehicle and
leaving the area.
Surveillance officers followed the defendant directly to 849
N. Dunham in Decatur. During this time officers established
the silver Volkswagen was registered to the defendant at an
address in Springfield, IL. At 849 N. Dunham, officers
observed the defendant's vehicle parked in the driveway
next to a white Pontiac van. The Pontiac van had its doors
open. Officers then saw the defendant reaching into the back
of his vehicle, where he had earlier placed the subject
packages. After about 10 minutes, surveillance officers saw
the defendant leave 849 N. Dunham in his silver Volkswagen.
The doors to the white Pontiac van were now closed. Insp.
Bergeron advised the other members of the investigation that
the tracking devices placed inside the subject packages
indicated that they were no longer in the defendant's
vehicle but had been transferred to the white Pontiac van and
remained at 849 N. Dunham.
Shortly after the defendant left 849 N. Dunham, Det. Larner
conducted an investigatory stop on the defendant's
vehicle. The entirety of the stop and the conversation
between Det. Larner and the defendant was audio/video
recorded by Det. Larner's in-car camera. At approximately
3:40 PM, Det. Larner made contact after pulling the defendant
over. Det. Larner took (sic) advised the defendant of his
Miranda rights, at which time the defendant waived his rights
and agreed to cooperate with officers. The defendant advised
Det. Larner that the packages were meant for him (the
defendant), they contained marijuana, and he had placed them
in the white Pontiac van at 849 N. Dunham. Det. Larner drove
the defendant back to 849 N. Dunham, arriving at
approximately 3:54 PM.
At approximately 3:56 PM, Det. Hockaday met with the
defendant and began questioning him. The defendant gave
verbal and written permission to search the entire premises
of 849 N. Dunham and provided Det. Hockaday with the keys to
the white Pontiac van so officers could search it. The
defendant also gave Insp. Williams verbal permission to
search the white Pontiac van. After beginning to search the
residence, Det. Hockaday returned to the marked police SUV
and retrieved the key to the van the defendant had supplied
so that officers could unlock the van in order to search it.
At some time after 4:07 PM, officers used the key supplied by
the defendant to unlock the van and began their search. While
searching the van officers recovered the evidence underlying
the charges in this case. At no time did the defendant open
either of the subject packages.
Motion to Suppress, the Defendant argues that the triggering
conditions for the anticipatory warrant did not occur. Defs.
Mot. at 7-10 (d/e 15). Specifically, the Defendant argues
that the warrant was contingent on the Defendant accepting
delivery of the package on behalf of Lisa Lawis and opening
the package upon delivery. Id. The Defendant argues
that neither event happened, so the warrant could not be
executed. Therefore, the detention and arrest of the
Defendant was unlawful and any incriminating statements he
made-and, presumably, the consents that he gave to search the
van and the house-were “fruit of the poisonous
tree.” Defs. Mot. at 11. (d/e 15).
Government argues that the anticipatory search warrant was
properly executed and that there was no requirement that the
packages be opened before the warrant could be executed.
Gov't Resp. at 6-9 (d/e 21). Further, even if the
anticipatory search warrants were not properly executed, the
Defendant consented to the search after a valid traffic stop.
Id. at 13.
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Long found that
the warrant, when taken with the application, was valid and
defined two conditions precedent: (1) “the agents
needed to ‘attempt to deliver the aforementioned
Priority Mail package to 1404 E. Main St., Deactur,
IL'”; and (2) “the agents required delivery
to an adult willing to accept delivery on behalf of
‘Lisa Lawis.'” Report and Recommendation at 6
(d/e 27). In finding both of the conditions were met,
Magistrate Judge Long also rejected Defendant's argument
that the packages needed to be opened in order to execute the
warrant. Id. at 7. Alternatively, Magistrate Judge
Long found that had the conditions precedent to the warrant
not been triggered, the Defendant still consented to both
searches after a lawful Terry stop. Id. at 8.
Court must review de novo those portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which timely objections are
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 24, 2018, the
Defendant timely filed his Objections to the Report and
Recommendation (d/e 29). The Defendant objects to Magistrate
Judge Long's findings that the triggering events for the
anticipatory search warrant occurred and that the evidence
supports a finding that the Defendant consented to the
searches in question after a legally executed Terry stop.
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the Court
denies the Defendant's Objections and adopts Magistrate
Judge Long's Report and Recommendation.
The Conditions Precedent to the Execution of the Warrant
Occurred After the Package was Delivered and the Defendant