United States v. Cardoza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THF. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF Al\/IERICA. v. Crim. Action No. 1 l-0275 (ABJ) JARED CARDOZA, Defendant. \/\/\/\./\./\/\_/\/\/ MEMORANl)Ul\/I OPINI()N AND ORDER Defendant Jared Cardoza has filed a motion entitled: l\/lotion to Reopen the Suppression Hearing and for Reconsideration ofthe Court`s Terry Stop Ruling ("Def.’s l\/lot.").l [Dkt. # 52]. Defendant’s original motion to suppress was filed on Deceinber l6, 201 1, and it sought suppression of all evidence seized from defcndant`s apartment pursuant to an August 31, 2011 search warrant, Def.’s Mot. to Suppress [Dkt. # 12]. The Court held a suppression hearing in 1 On August 27, 2()11, three l\/letropolitan Police Department officers observed a vehicle stopped in a no parking zone in the Adams l\/lorgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Unz'led Stales v. Cardoza, 713 F.3d 656, 657 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Defendant and Adam Ungar were talking outside the vehicle, and one of`the police officers observed each extend a hand towards the other. [a’. The police officers made a U-turn and parked behind the stopped vehicle. By that time, defendant and Ungar were seated in the vehicle. with defendant in the front passenger seat and Ungar in the back. ]d. Officer johnston approached the front passenger side and spoke to the vehicle’s occupants through an open window. During the conversation, Officer johnston noticed that defendant’s fist was clenched and observed him place something under his leg. He asked defendant to step out of the vehicle, and when defendant complied, observed a marijuana cigarette lying on the seat where defendant had been sitting. ld. The officers also recovered a plastic bag of cocaine lying on the seat next to where Ungar had been sitting. Ia’. The police officers arrested defendant and Ungar, and during a search incident to arrest, they found three cell phones, $2,880 in cash, a knotted plastic bag of marijuana, and a sheet of paper listing major cities and baseball teams on defendant`s person. ld. at 657~58. Based on information gathered during his August 27. 201 1 arrest, the police obtained a warrant to search defendant’s home on suspicion that defendant was involved in drug trafficking Ia'. at 658. Defendant sought to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the police executing that search warrant, arguing that the warrant contained several falsehoods and it was not supported by probable cause. Ia’. this case on April ll, 2012, see Apr. 11, 2012 l\/linute Entry, and it granted the motion to suppress for the reasons stated on the record in open court on l\/Iay 31, 2012. See l\/lay 31, 2012 l\/linute Entry. The following findings from that ruling are pertinent to this motion: The Court determined that the initial interaction between the police officers and defendant - when Officer johnston approached a parked car and spoke to its occupants through an open window - was not a "stop" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, it did not require any level of suspicion. l\/lay 31_ 2012 Status Conference Tr. ("S.C. Tr.") at 8 [Dkt. # 41]. The Court rejected defendant’s arguments that were premised on the subjective intent of the officers, noting that subject motivations are irrelevant under Fotu“th Amendment case law. l ee id. at 8-1 1. The Court held that Officer Johnston`s request that defendant step out of the car marked the turning point in the encounter where defendant was now in "custody" within the meaning ofthe Fourth Amendment. Ia’. at 13. But the custody was the product ofa valid Terry stop prompted and justified by Officer Johnston"s reasonable suspicion that defendant - who moments before had visibly placed something under his left leg - might pose a safety risk to Officer Johnston. [a’. at 12-14. 'l`he Court concluded that the affidavit underlying the contested search warrant contained several statements that Officer Hollan made with at least a reckless disregard for the truth, and that he put forth in support ofa determination that there was probable cause to search defendant`s apartment for evidence of drug trafficking.z Id. at 16-31. Once the questionable statements were excluded froin the sworn affidavit_ the remaining facts were not sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. Ia’. at 31~32. As a result. the Court granted the motion to suppress. Ia’. The government appealed the Court’s decision to grant the motion to suppress, and the D.C. Circuit reversed the suppression order. Uni'led$tales v. Carcz'oza, 713 F.3d 656, 661 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court of Appeals found that probable cause existed even after all of the questionable statements had been excised from the af`fidavit, and therefore, the search of defendant’s apartment was proper. Ia’. at 659-61. ln response to his loss on appeal, defendant now asks this Court to reopen the suppression hearing because he believes that the "Court of Appeals relied on factual assumptions or 2 Specifically, the Court concluded that the following statements were included in the search warrant affidavit without regard for their accuracy: v Paragraph 3 on page 2 stated that "[e]ach defendant extended a hand towards the other and touched the other’s and with his ow'n" Warrant Aff., Ex. D to Def.’s l\/Iot. at 2 [Dkt. # 52-4]. The Court found that, during the suppression hearing. defendant elicited contradictory testimony from Officer Hollan that called into question the accuracy of that statement. S.C. Tr. at 21~24. quoting Suppression Hr`g Tr., Ex. 1 to Def.’s Post-Hr’g Mem. at 31. 47~48, 54, 60, 77-79. 81, 92-94, 104~05 [Dkt. # 30-1]. ¢ Paragraph 5 on page 4 of the affidavit stated that the drugs recovered from defendant were packaged in an uncommon form of packaging. Warrant Aff. at 5. But at the suppression hearing, the ofHcer all but conceded that the packaging was completely unremarkable. S.C. Tr. at 25, quoting Suppression Hr’g Tr. at 69. v Paragraph 4 on page 4 of the affidavit provided that, after the police officers found marijuana on defendant’s person, defendant told the officers that the significant amount of money he possessed "was unrelated to drugs" and that "he took bets on baseball games every day." Warrant Aff. at 4. At thc suppression hearing, Officer Hollan testified repeatedly and consistently that defendant said he "placed" bets. S.C. Tr. at 26-29, quoting Suppression Hr’g Tr. at 41. 74. 77. 79. 96-98, 104. 108. This also led the Court to question paragraph 5 on page 5 of the affidavit, which included the officer’s interpretation of the significance of` the piece of paper he found on defendant`s person that listed major cities and baseball gaines. S.C. Tr. at 29-30, quoting Suppression Hr’g Tr. at 75~77; Warrant Aff. at 5. misunderstandings that this Court can and should correct before further proceedings are had in this case." Def.`s l\/lot. at l. He also moves for this Court to reconsider its prior ruling regarding the lawfulness of the initial encounter between the defendant and the police. Id. The Court will not grant either request. ANALYSIS I. The Court will deny defendant’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing. Defendant first requests that this Court reopen the suppression hearing to address what he says were factual inisunderstandings that the Court of Appeals relied upon when it concluded that the warrant was based on probable cause. Def.`s l\/lot. at 3-8. To support his motion, defendant cites cases that stand for the proposition that a criminal defendant may move for reconsideration of a trial court’s order, and that a motion to reopen a suppression hearing functions as a motion to reconsider. Id. at 3. But the Court cannot rely on that precedent to reopen the suppression hearing now. This case does not present the usual situation where a court has denied a motion to suppress, and the defendant seeks to present newly obtained evidence in an effort to alter the Court’s decision. This Court granted the motion to suppress. and that decision was overturned on appeal. See Car¢z’o:rz. 713 F.3d at 661. Defendant has not identified any authority that would give a district court the power - absent an express remand by the Court of Appeals ~ to reopen and reconsider the circuit court`s determination that the warrant was supported by probable cause. Defendant’s concern that the D.C. Circuit’s decision rests on an inaccurate understanding of the record must be lodged with that court. And even ifthis Court could reconsider the appellate court`s decision that the motion to suppress should be denied, defendant has not demonstrated that reconsideration would be warranted in this case. Pre-trial motions for reconsideration are committed to the sound discretion of the trial couit, and different circuits apply different tests to determine when reconsideration is appropriate See Um`ted Stale.s‘ v. Watson, 391 F. Supp. 2d 89, 91-94 (D.D.C. 2005) (collecting cases). But all the various tests have at least one factor in common: a motion for reconsideration requires the existence ofnew evidence that was not previously available. See ia’.; see also Rozrse ix Um'/ed Slales, 359 F.2d 1014, 1015-16 (D.C. Cir. 1966`). As a result, principles from the civil context. such as the understanding that a "motion to reconsider is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled," New York v. United Slale.s‘, 880 F. Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995). are equally applicable in the criminal context. Defendant argues that reconsideration is necessary to correct the following "factual assumptions and misperceptions" that he claims led the Court of Appeals to find probable cause to support the search warrant: ¢ According to defendant, the Court of Appeals placed too much emphasis on Officer Hollan’s testimony that he saw defendant and Ungar interact on the street because the officer admitted that "‘he never meant to state in his affidavit that he `thought the meeting on the street was [a drug] exchange."’ Def.’s l\/lot. at 5, quoting S.C. Tr. at 23. ¢ Officer Hollan`s affidavit specifies that 4.3 grains of cocaine were found in the vehicle when in fact the actual weight of the cocaine without the packaging was only 3 grams. Id. at 4, 6, citing Chemist Report, Ex. B to Def`.’s l\/lot. [Dl