United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Robert
M. Dow, Jr. United States District Judge.
For the
reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to suppress
[46] is denied. This case remains set for further status
hearing on November 5, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
I.
Background
After
considering the parties' briefs and the live testimony of
the officers[1] and Defendant's girlfriend, and making
any necessary credibility determinations, the Court sets
forth the following recitation of the facts surrounding the
encounter between Defendant and the law enforcement officers
that gave rise to the motion to suppress currently before the
Court.
Defendant
Artemio Ramirez is charged with conspiracy to possess a
controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. 846, and possession of a controlled substance
with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
841(a)(1). On May 23, 2017, law enforcement officers observed
Defendant meeting with a suspected drug courier. They
followed Defendant's vehicle and stopped it behind his
apartment building. Subsequently, they searched
Defendant's apartment and found his girlfriend and more
than 100 kilograms of cocaine, which the Government says
Defendant admitted were his.
Defendant
moved [46] to suppress the physical evidence recovered from
the search of his apartment, as well as certain statements he
made, arguing that (1) the initial stop was unconstitutional
because the Government lacked reasonable suspicion, (2) the
initial stop was unconstitutional because it occurred without
probable cause in the curtilage of the apartment, (3) the
initial stop was unconstitutional because the Government
prolonged it to investigate unrelated crimes, (4)
Defendant's girlfriend's consent to search the
apartment was invalid, and (5) the Government obtained
statements from Defendant in violation of his Fifth Amendment
Rights.
In
early 2017, the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”),
working with local law enforcement, was investigating a
Mexican drug-trafficking organization with ties to Chicago.
[132] at 6. The DEA had a cooperating source
(“CS”) in contact with a Mexican drug supplier,
who told the CS that a large cocaine shipment had been sent
to Chicago. Id. The CS told the drug supplier that
he had wholesale customers in Chicago. DEA agents provided
the phone number and code name of an undercover officer
(“UC”) to play the role of a customer.
Id. at 7. The CS provided the DEA with the code name
of the supplier's contact in Chicago
(“Pancho”), as well as a serial number from a
dollar bill, which the UC could use to verify the
supplier's identity. Id.
On May
22, 2017, “Pancho” (later determined to be
co-defendant Jesus Soberanis) called the UC and provided the
same serial number that the CS had given the DEA. During
recorded calls on May 22, the UC asked Soberanis how many
kilograms of cocaine were available and what the price was
for the cocaine. Id. at 7-8. Soberanis said that he
had one kilogram for sale and twenty-four more were
available, if the UC liked the cocaine. Soberanis told the UC
to “call down south” to Mexico for the price.
Id. at 8-9. From this, the DEA agents inferred that
Soberanis was a courier and someone else was supplying him
with narcotics. Id. The DEA then obtained an order
from the Circuit Court of Cook County for GPS location
information on Soberanis's phone. Id. at 10, 53.
Using the GPS location information, officers began
surveilling Soberanis at a location on West Schubert Avenue.
On May
23, 2017, around 3:33 p.m., the UC called Soberanis and
agreed to take one kilogram of cocaine and discuss the
remaining twenty-four kilograms later. Soberanis and the UC
agreed to meet at a store parking lot at Cicero and Diversey
forty-five minutes later to conduct the transaction. A few
minutes after that call, law enforcement officers conducting
surveillance of Soberanis watched him exit the location on
West Schubert Avenue and enter a dark-colored GMC Envoy. They
followed Soberanis's vehicle and, monitoring the GPS
location of “Pancho's” phone, saw the phone
traveling with the Envoy. [132] at 12-13. Officers watched
Soberanis drive into a grocery store parking lot on West
Grand Avenue and park his vehicle. Officers then saw a man,
later determined to be Defendant, walk through a hard rain to
Soberanis's Envoy and lean into the open passenger
window. Id. at 15, 103. The officers could not see
whether Defendant had anything in his hands. Id. at
103. After a few moments, Defendant left, got into a
different vehicle, and drove away. Soberanis drove in a
different direction. At no point did officers see either man
enter the grocery store. Id. at 16. The officers
split their surveillance team and followed both Soberanis and
Defendant. At approximately 3:40 p.m., Defendant pulled into
a residential alley between Oak Park Avenue and Newcastle
Avenue. Four officers were following him, each in his own
car. As the door of a detached garage on the side of the
alley began to open, officers activated their lights and
initiated a stop of Defendant.
Officers
approached Defendant's car and asked for identification,
in English. Officers asked if he lived at the residence, and
he answered “no.” [132] at 28-29. When asked why
he had a garage door opener for a residence he did not live
in, Defendant said he did not live at the address or know who
lived there. Defendant then said his cousin lived at the
residence, but told officers he did not know his cousin's
name. Defendant also said his brother lived in the basement
apartment of the residence but told officers he did not know
his brother's name. Id. at 30. Defendant spoke
with officers in English and appeared to have no trouble
understanding the conversation. Id. at 30-31.
Officers
then took Defendant's cell phone and keys, handcuffed
him, and put him in one of the officer's vehicles. One
officer remained with Defendant, and the other three walked
through the back yard and approached the back door of the
residence. They encountered a man coming out of the basement
residence who identified himself as the landlord of the
building. He told the officers that he owned the building and
rented the first-floor unit to a Hispanic male missing an
ear, a description that matched Defendant, and a woman who
was pregnant. Id. at 37-38. While in the
landlord's basement unit, officers heard the floor
creaking in the first-floor unit above them. Id. at
111.
Officers
then went to the rear entrance of the first-floor apartment.
One officer inserted a key from Defendant's key ring into
the door to confirm that it fit the lock, then removed the
key without using it to open the door. Id. at 39-40.
The officers knocked on the door, and Defendant's
six-months-pregnant girlfriend answered. They identified
themselves as police and asked if anyone else was in the
apartment. Defendant's girlfriend said “No, ”
and the officers asked if they could check the apartment to
confirm her answer; she agreed and moved out of the way of
the door.[2]
One
officer stayed with Defendant's girlfriend near the back
door of the apartment while two others conducted a protective
sweep of the residence. On the kitchen table, the officers
saw a large scale, several rolls of duct tape, plastic
baggies, and markers, which they believed were tools of the
drug trade. In the main bedroom, the officers opened a closet
with a sliding door and a large armoire; in both, officers
saw several bricks of a white powdery substance, later
identified as cocaine. [132] at 42-43. The officers returned
to Defendant's girlfriend, who at that point refused to
sign a written consent form authorizing the agents to search
the apartment, and asked the officers to leave. Believing
that the discovery of the bricks in the apartment permitted a
continued search, officers conducted a more thorough search
of the residence, recovering additional evidence including
more cocaine.
Shortly
after the cocaine was discovered, a Spanish-speaking officer
arrived at the apartment. Officers moved Defendant from the
patrol car into the apartment, though not the same room as
his girlfriend. The Spanish-speaking officer advised
Defendant of his Miranda rights, in Spanish, and
Defendant said he was unwilling to answer questions. [133] at
26, 28. The officer advised Defendant's girlfriend of her
Miranda rights, also in Spanish. Id. at
28-29. She, too, said she was unwilling to answer questions.
Id. at 29. Officers brought both Defendant and his
girlfriend to the rear of the residence, where they
separately began the booking process for each, beginning with
Defendant. During the booking process, Defendant said to the
officers, in Spanish, “That's all mine.”
Id. at 31. An officer asked what was all his, and
Defendant said, “The cocaine.” Id. at
32. Defendant was arrested; his girlfriend was not.
Defendant
was charged with conspiracy to possess a controlled substance
with intent to distribute, and with possession of a
controlled substance with intent to distribute. See [15].
Defendant filed a motion [46] to suppress statements and
physical evidence. The Court held two evidentiary hearings on
the motion. At the first hearing, Special Agent Donald Wood
and Task Force Officer Chris Chmelar testified about the stop
of the Defendant and search of his apartment, as well as the
investigation preceding their contact with Defendant. See
[132] and [133]. Task Force Officer Carlos Huertas also
testified about reading Miranda rights to and
speaking with Defendant and his girlfriend. See [133]. At the
second hearing, Defendant's girlfriend testified about
the officer's search of the apartment and the alleged
deal that Defendant made with the officers, in which he
claimed the cocaine was his in order to keep the officers
from arresting his girlfriend. See [92].
II.
...