United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS
JEFFREY ALKER MEYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant
Dewayne Joyner moves to suppress evidence that was seized
from him by law enforcement agents in the course of executing
search warrants for his person and for a hotel room where he
was staying. Because the search warrants were supported by
probable cause and because Joyner has not shown any other
legal defect in the execution of the warrants that would
justify a remedy of suppressing evidence, I will deny
Joyner's motion.
Background
A
federal grand jury indictment charges Joyner with knowingly
possessing heroin with intent to distribute it on various
dates from September 6 to September 12, 2017. The charges
stem from an investigation based in Bridgeport, Connecticut
that included several controlled purchases of heroin from
Joyner. These purchases were followed by his arrest late on
the night of September 11, 2017, after he was found by law
enforcement officers with heroin on a street outside a
Bridgeport hotel. The officers subsequently searched his
hotel room in the early morning hours of September 12, 2017,
and found more heroin as well as packaging materials.
Joyner
has moved to suppress the evidence found on him at the time
of his arrest as well as the evidence found in his hotel
room. All this evidence was obtained in conjunction with the
execution of search warrants for Joyner's person and for
the hotel room. Because the adequacy of these two search
warrants is the focus of Joyner's motion to suppress, I
will describe them in some detail.
The
affidavit in support of the first search warrant for
Joyner's person was co-signed by Detective Dennis
Martinez and Officer Chris Martin of the Bridgeport Police
Department. Doc. #36-1 at 14 (¶¶ 1-2). The
affidavit recounted information received from a
“Confidential Informant, ” who was described as a
“known credible and reliable informant” and who
told the affiants that there was someone by the nickname of
“Weezy” who “was selling heroin” in
Bridgeport, that the Confidential Informant himself had
bought heroin “in the past” from “Weezy,
” and that “Weezy” used a certain telephone
number. Id. (¶¶ 3-5).
The
Confidential Informant identified a photograph of Joyner as
“Weezy.” Id. at 15 (¶ 7). The
Confidential Informant also agreed to make a controlled
purchase of heroin from Joyner, and the affidavit describes
how he went through with a controlled purchase of heroin from
Joyner during the week of September 6, 2017, all of which was
monitored by law enforcement agents. Id. at 15-16
(¶¶ 8-12). This controlled purchase occurred
outside a house at 164 Cleveland Avenue in Bridgeport, and
Joyner was seen by law enforcement agents emerging from the
house to meet the Confidential Informant and then returning
back to the house afterwards. Id. at 15 (¶ 10).
On the basis of all these facts, the search warrant affidavit
alleged there was “probable cause to believe that
evidence of Possession of Narcotics with Intent to Sell,
21a-278(b), is located on the body of” Joyner.
Id. at 17 (¶ 16).
A
Connecticut state court judge signed this search warrant for
Joyner's person at 10:51 p.m. on the night of September
11, 2017. Id. at 12; Doc. #45 at 27-28. In the
meantime, law enforcement officers had Joyner under
continuing surveillance. At around midnight, they saw Joyner
leave 164 Cleveland Avenue and drive to the Holiday Inn in
Bridgeport. Doc. #45 at 33- 34; Doc. #76 at 61. After he
parked his car on the street next to the hotel, the officers
closed in to execute the search warrant. They searched Joyner
and the area immediately around him and found about $1, 300
in cash, 10 glassine folds of heroin, a bag with a leafy
substance, a half-pill of Viagra, four cellphones, and a
Holiday Inn hotel key card. Doc. #36-1 at 20; Doc. #45 at
36-37, 39, 49.[1]
The
officers placed Joyner under arrest and then went inside the
Holiday Inn with the key card to ask to see if Joyner had a
room there. Doc. #45 at 40-41, 83, 132; Doc. #76 at 37, 88;
Doc. #83 at 37. The desk clerk ran the card, and then printed
out a receipt with Joyner's name and room number, and the
officers told the clerk that they were going to obtain a
search warrant for this room. Doc. #45 at 41; Doc. #76 at 89,
93; Doc. #83 at 38.
The
officers also decided to do a protective sweep of the room.
One of the supervising agents-ATF Special Agent Michael
Oppenheim-testified at the suppression hearing about his
reason for doing a protective search, because of his concern
that Joyner had recently been involved in an armed robbery of
narcotics, and the agent was concerned about the possibility
that Joyner might have armed confederates in the hotel room.
Doc. #45 at 123-25. The protective sweep lasted approximately
one minute and did not reveal that there was anyone else in
the room or involve the search for or seizure of any
evidence. Id. at 127-31.
Neither
of the search warrant affiants-Detective Martinez and Officer
Martin-took part in the protective sweep. Doc. #45 at 43-44;
Doc. #83 at 39. Agent Oppenheim testified that nothing was
communicated to the affiants about what was seen during the
protective sweep, Doc. #45 at 129, and Officer Martin
credibly testified that he planned to apply for the search
warrant regardless of the protective sweep, Doc. #45 at 109.
Detective
Martinez and Officer Martin then drafted another search
warrant affidavit that recounted essentially the same facts
from the first affidavit as discussed above for the search
warrant of Joyner's body but also added more facts
specific to their reasons for believing that there would be
narcotics evidence in Joyner's hotel room. This second
affidavit recounted the search of Joyner on the street
outside the Holiday Inn and the recovery from him of
suspected heroin in glassine bags packaged for street level
sales, four cell phones, a quantity of money
“consistent with the sale of narcotics, ” and
“a swipe card key belonging to the Holiday Inn.”
Doc. #36-1 at 27 (¶ 16).
The
second affidavit further alleged that “during the
course of this investigation source information had indicated
that Dwayne [sic] Joyner had been staying at the
Holiday Inn and using the hotel to store narcotics.”
Ibid. (¶ 17). In addition, it described how
during the investigation Joyner was seen “[o]ver the
course of several days” both “coming and
going” from 164 Cleveland Avenue and also that
“[s]urveillance conducted at the Hoiliday
[sic] Inn observed Dwyane Joyner entering and
exiting the hotel.” Ibid. The affiants alleged
on the basis of their training and experience that
“[i]ndividuals that are involved in the sale of
narcotics frequently change their routine and patterns in
order to avoid detection by police and further routinely
utilize addresses and areas not associated with them in
effort to keep and maintain their narcotics trade.”
Ibid.
The
second affidavit additionally noted that “[t]hat upon
locating the key on the person of Dwyane Joyner, officers
contacted the Holiday Inn, ” and “[a] check would
reveal that Dwyane Joyner date of birth [redacted] had rented
room #723 on 09/10/2017 and was to check out on
09/12/2017.” Ibid. (ΒΆ 18). On the basis
of these facts, the affiants alleged there was probable cause
to believe that evidence of ...