United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Alan
A. Slaughter, Jr., United States Attorney's Office,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Plaintiff.
Peter
B. Wold, Wold Morrison Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HILDY
BOWBEER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The
above-captioned case comes before the undersigned on
Defendant Martavis Shawn Demar James's
(“James”) Motion to Suppress Search and Seizure
of Items [Doc. No. 18]. The case was referred for resolution
of pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and
District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. No. hearing was held,
and the Court took these motions under advisement on October
30, 2018. See (Oct. 30, 2018 Order [Doc. No. 23]
(cancelling the motion hearing on the basis of
representations made by the parties). For the reasons stated
below, the Court recommends that James's Motion to
Suppress be denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
On
September 12, 2018, James was indicted on five counts of
Interference with Commerce by Robbery and one count of
Attempted Interference with Commerce by Robbery. (Indictment
[Doc. No. 1].) The indictment was in connection with
robberies or attempted robberies of at least ten businesses
in the Minneapolis and Saint Paul metropolitan area committed
by the same individual between March and June 2018.
(Government's Resp. to Def.'s Suppression Mot.,
“Mem. in Opp'n” [Doc. No. 20 at 1].)
A.
The Robberies and James's Arrest
From
March 2018 to June 2018, there were roughly ten robberies of
CVS, Big Lots, Walgreens, and Dollar Tree store locations
across the Twin Cities. See (Mem. in Opp'n Ex. 1
[Doc. No. 20-1 at 4-5]; Mem. in Opp'n Ex. 2 [Doc. No.
20-2 at 4-5]; Mem. in Opp'n Ex 3 [Doc. No. 20-3 at 4-5].)
The Government alleges the perpetrator of each robbery
utilized the same modus operandi in the commission
of these crimes. (Ex. 1 at 4-5; Ex. 2 at 4-5; Ex. 3 at 4-5.)
The male perpetrator would “case” the store by
loitering in the parking lot of the establishment for roughly
ten minutes before entering the store wearing a black jacket
with the hood up, a black face mask covering the bottom half
of his face, black gloves, and brandishing a black handgun.
(Ex. 1 at 4; Ex. 3 at 4.) The perpetrator would approach an
employee and demand to be led to the safe in the business
office where he would prompt the employee to place bills into
a red and black duffel bag, then he would order the employees
to lie on the floor, and exit the store on foot. (Ex. 1 at
4-5; Ex. 2 at 4-5; Ex. 3 at 4-5.) Each robbery occurred in
the last thirty minutes of the store's business hours.
(Ex. 1 at 4-5; Ex. 2 at 4-5; Ex. 3 at 4-5.)
Unable
to identify the perpetrator of these robberies through
surveillance videos at these locations, law enforcement
agents applied for search warrants for cellular tower data in
the vicinity to determine whether “a particular
cellular phone number (ostensibly held by the robber) could
be identified during the time frames of each of the
respective robberies.” (Mem. in Opp'n at 2);
see also (Ex. 1; Ex. 2; Ex. 3.) The search warrants
were reviewed and issued by three different state court
judges. See (Ex. 1; Ex. 2; Ex. 3.)
Analysis
of the cellular information revealed that the same cellphone
number was near at least five of the six robbery locations
during the time of the robberies. (Mem. in Opp'n at 2.)
On this basis, law enforcement agents were granted a search
warrant for the use of an active GPS “ping”
geolocation data for James's cellphone and the use of a
pen register to monitor James's movements. (Id.
at 3); see also (Mem. in Opp'n Ex. 5 [Doc. No.
20-5].) On June 1, 2018, agents followed James to a CVS store
located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota where they observed him
casing and approaching the store while wearing the same or
similar black clothing, black gloves, and mask seen in the
surveillance video. (Mem. in Opp'n at 3.) James, however,
was unable to enter the store; the doors had been locked by
law enforcement and CVS employees, thwarting James's
robbery of this location. (Id.) James walked back to
his vehicle and, once inside, he was arrested. (Id.)
As part
of a search incident to his arrest, law enforcement agents
searched the main cabin of the vehicle and located a black
and red duffel bag in the passenger seat. The duffel bag
appeared to be the same one used in the commission of the
other robberies and contained a bank deposit bag that was
taken during the commission of one of the CVS robberies.
(Id.) Law enforcement also found a handgun under the
driver's seat and James's cellphone in the
vehicle's center console. (Id.)
B.
Challenged Warrants
James
moves to suppress evidence obtained as a result of searches
conducted pursuant to nine warrants issued by Anoka and
Hennepin County District Courts. (Def.'s Mot. to Suppress
[Doc. No. 18 at 1].) James primarily challenges the first
three warrants, each of which authorized the collection of
cellular tower dumps and call detail record information from
Verizon Wireless, AT&T Mobility, Sprint Corporation, and
T-Mobile USA, of all cellular devices utilizing the cell
site/sector near the specified areas for a variety of dates,
times, and locations correlated with the robberies.
(Id. at 2.) James argues these search warrants were
exploratory searches and lacked definiteness and the
necessary probable cause. (Id. at 2-3.)
The
first set of robberies occurred on March 21, 2018, March 29,
2018, and April 6, 2018. (Ex. 1 at 4-5.) On April 11, 2018,
Minneapolis Police Sergeant Jeffrey Waite (“Sgt.
Waite”) applied for and received the first warrant
authorizing cellular tower dumps and call detail record
information of all cellular devices near the first three
robbery locations. (Ex. 1 at 1-2.) The search warrants were
constrained to an approximately ninety-minute time frame on
the date of each robbery. (Ex. 1 at 1-2.)
Subsequently,
three more robberies with almost identical details including
the perpetrator's attire, time of robbery, and method of
robbery occurred on April 11, 2018, April 26, 2018, and May
4, 2018. (Ex. 2 at 4-5.) Two warrants were applied for and
granted on May 8, 2018, authorizing the release of the same
type of information from the same carriers called for by the
first search warrant. (Ex. 2; Ex. 3.) These search warrants
were limited to cellular towers near the alleged criminal
activity for a ...