People of the Virgin Islands v. LaQuan Esson England

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: November 16, 2023
• Docket: ST-2023-CR-156
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) ) CASE NO ST 2023 CR 00156 Plaintiff, ) ) V ) ) LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND ) ) Defendant ) 2023 VI Super 69U E4

WW {[1 THIS MATTER came before the Court on November 6, 2023, for a hearing on Defendant

Laquan Esson England’s (“England or Defendant ) Motion to Suppress, filed September 21 , 2023 The People of the Virgin Islands (‘ the People ) did not file a response to the Motion ' Assistant

Attorney General Ebette M Fortune appeared on behalf of the People Defendant England

appeared and was represented by David J Cattle, Esquire The People called, as their only witness and evidence, Virgin Islands Police Department Officer Aisha Somersall For the reasons stated

herein, the Court finds that the actions of the police violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the Defendant to be free fi°0m unreasonable searches and seizures and Defendant was in custody and subject to custodial interrogation without having been advised of his Mzranda rights Therefor e,

the motion to suppress is granted

I BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

{[2 On May 11, 2023, the People filed a five count criminal information against Defenda nt charging (l) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm with a Conversion Kit in violation of VI

' At the discovery conference on September 25, 2023, the People requested two weeks to respond to Defendant s motion to suppress The Court granted the request and issued an Order on September 28 2023 directing the People to respond by October It 2023 Despite the People requesting additional time to respond and this Corut s Order, an opposition and/or a response was never filed by the People

1A POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U ST 2023 CR 00156 MEMORANDUM OPINION PAGE 2

CODE ANN tit 14, § 2253(6), (2) Unauthorized Possession of a Machine Gun in violation of 14 V I C §§ 2253(b) and (d)(2); (3) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm within one Thousand Feet

of a School in violation of 14 V I C § 2252(f); (4) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm in

violation of 14 V I C § 2253(3); and (5) Unauthorized Possession of Ammunition in violation of 14 V I C § 2256(a)(3) The matter came before the Court for Arraignment on May 12 2023 and England entered pleas of “not guilty” to all counts

113 At the suppression hearing on November 6, 2023, the People called one witness Officer .

Aisha Somersall of the Virgin Islands Police Department Defendant s counsel examined the

People’s witness but did not call any witnesses The People did not offer any exhibits as evidence

1|4 England argues that the police officer 8 warrantless search of his vehicle on April 23, 2023,

was an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

As such, England argues that the firearm that was taken as evidence during this search should be suppressed as fi'uit of an unconstitutional seizure and any statements made are also subject to

suppression because any statements made were without a voluntary waiver of his rights against

self incrimination and rights to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the Revised

Organic Act The People argue that Officer Somersall acted in good faith and the firearm was

obtained legally The People also mentioned the firearm would have inevitably been discovere d, however, the People did not put forth any evidence of how this would have occurred The People

also did not address whether Defendant s statements were legally obtained

11 FACTS

115 On April 23, 2023, Virgin Islands Police Officer Aisha Somersall was dispatched to a car

accident in Hospital Ground, involving only one vehicle Upon am'val, Officer Somersall saw a POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U ST 2023 CR 00156 MEMORANDUM OPINION PAGE 3

white Jeep Wrangler had struck a pole The driver was in the Jeep, and it was still running The Jeep was stopped, and the driver was unresponsive

1J6 Officer Somersall knocked several times on the glass window and tried to wake the driver

up but was unable She noticed the driver’s foot was on the brake and the car was still in drive Officer Somersall opened the door, placed the car in park, and attempted to wake the driver up

again by tapping on his shoulder, calling out to him, and shaking him a bit

17 Officer Somersall then called 911 for emergency services Officer Somersall was trained

to try to wake people up if they are unresponsive She looked around the car to see if he had

identification, looked at his Jewelry to see if he had a medical assistance bracelet, looked for his wallet to see if there was any identification or medication, but she did not find a wallet Officer

Somersall then opened a small grey pouch near the emergency brake, near the unresponsive male,

and saw black firearm

118 Officer Somersall did not observe any blood and did not smell alcohol When Defendant

woke up, he was confused and out of it When Officer Somersall asked Defendant if he was ok and to stand up and come out of the car, he did Officer Somersall then asked if the grey pouch

was his, and he said yes She also asked if he knew what was inside the pouch Officer Somersall

also remembered him saying the gun was not his She then placed Defendant in a police vehicle 1|9 0n cross examination Officer Somersall testified that when she arrived on the scene, she

did not observe any broken glass She also testified that when she received the dispatch to go to

the scene there was no information about contraband or anything illegal, and she did not observe any drugs or anything illegal when she approached the vehicle until she opened the grey pouch Officer Somersall had no suspicion of illegal activity and was not in fear for her safety Officer

Somersall observed that Defendant was not covered in blood, not grabbing his chest, and not POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U ST 2023 CR 00156 MEMORANDUM OPINION PAGE 4

behaving as if having a medical incident He was breathing normally and appeared like he was

asleep She did not perform CPR

1[10 Officer Somersall testified she opened the grey pouch to look for identifi cation and admitted she did not look in the glove box because the pouch was closer Until she opened the pouch, she had no belief or suspicion that the vehicle contained any contraband or weapons Defendant did not give Officer Somersall permission to search the pouch and she did not search any other part of the vehicle

1|ll When asked about statements Defendant made, Officer Somersall said she did not give Defendant his Mzranda rights until he was at the police station, and he decline d to give a statement When asked about the statements made by Defendant at the scene, Officer Somersall indicated that

Defendant was in custody when she asked him about the grey pouch and its’ contents

Ill LEGAL STANDARD

A Motion to suppress physical evidence obtained through warrantiess seizure of the defendant

1112 The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Revised Organic Act of 1954 protect the people of the Virgin Islands from unreasonable searches and seizures 2 The

Fourth Amendme seizures of the person 3 A seizure of the person occurs when a reasonable person, in view of all

’ U S Const amend IV (stating, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”) see also V [C Rev Org Act of 1954 § 3 ( The right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated"), see also People v Armstrong, 64 V I 528, 530 n 1 (V l 2016) (stating that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitut ion applies to the Virgin Islands) 3 California v Hodart D 499 U S 621 624 (1991) (citing Henry t United States 36] U S 98 100 (1959)) see also Blyden v People 53 V I 637 647 (V I 2010) (quoting Brown v Texas 443 U S 47 50 (1979)) (finding that “the Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest”) POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U ST 2023 CR 00156 MEMORANDUM OPINION PAGE 5

the circumstances surrounding the incident, would not feel free to leave 4 The Supreme Coun

approved the exclusion ofevidence as a sanction for violations of the Fourth Amendment in Weeks

v United States,5 and the exclusionary rule was extended to the States in Mapp v Ohio 6 Under

the exclusionary rule, the Court must suppress evidence found to be a product of a Fourth

Amendment violation 7 However, while the Fourth Amendment ensures an individual’s rights to be secure from unreasonable search and seizures, it does not require a police officer to ignore a possible crime 8 The Fourth Amendment allows officers to conduct limited searches and seizures

upon the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity 9 A warrantless search must be shown to fall

within one of the few narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement "

1113 On a motion to suppress, the burden of proof is ordinarily on the defendant who seeks to

suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment or a statement under the Fifth Amendment '2

However, once it has been established that a search or seizure was conducted without a warrant,

the burden shifts to the government to show that the search or seizure was reasonable '3

Warrantiess searches and seizures are ‘ per se unreasonable absent a few ‘well delineate d

4 See Hodau D 499 U S at 628 see also United States 1 Dmyton 536 U S 194 201 (2002) (finding that if a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been seized ’); see also Blyden, 53 V l at 647 (determming that “whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized that person ) 5 232 U S 383 (1914) 6 367 U S 643 (1961) 7 See 1d at 648 8 See United States v Chabot 19 V I 28 35 (D V I 1982) (finding that the Fourth Amendmen t does not require police officers “simply to shrug their shoulders and allow a crime to occur ) 9 See People v Looby 65 VI 84 89 (V 1 Super Ct 2016 (citing Terry v Ohio 392 U S l 30 (1968)) (allowing a limited search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause “where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that cnminal activity may be afoot ) " See Karz 1 Untied States, 389 U S 347 357 (1967) see also G01 :1 Fabian: Ogno, 20 V I 404 409 (Terr Ct 1984) '2 People v Prentice 64 V I 79 89 (V I Super Ct 2016) (citing United States 1 Johnson 63 F 3d 242 245 3d Cir 1995 II! 1d» POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U ST 2023 CR 00156 MEMORANDUM OPINION PAGE 6

exceptions ”"4 The test for “reasonableness” is an objective inquiry analyzed by examini ng the totality of the circumstances surrounding the search or seizure '5 If a search or seizure is found to be unreasonable, then evidence obtained through such searches and seizures is excluded in

criminal prosecutions '6

1114 This Court must apply a totality of circumstances’ analysis when deciding whether

probable cause existed '7 Under the test, the totality of the circumstances the whole picture

must be taken into account "8 The inferences of a trained officer may be considered, and

probabilities, not certainty, govern '9

1115 Generally, a warrant is not required for a valid investigatory stop of a vehicle 20 To justify

a warrantless investigatory stop, however, the officer must possess reasonable suspicio n of criminal activity based on the totality of the circumstances 2'

116 Another widely recognized warrant exception, the so called “automobile excepti on” or “Carroll D00tn'ne,”27 provides that no warrant is necessary to search a car when there is probable cause to believe that there is contraband or evidence of a crime in the automobile and exigent

Circumstances etht 7:

'4 People 1 Pemberton 71 VI 251 259 (VI Super Ct 2019) (citing Byownet People 56 V1 207 217 (VI 2012)) (quoting Kat. 389 U S at 357) '5 Prentice 64 V I at 89 (citing United States 1 Montoya de Hernandez 473 U S 531 537 (1985)) '6 See It! (citing Mappi Ohio 367 U S 643 654 57 (1961)) '7 UnttedSmtesI Cone 449 U S 411 418 (1981) 13 Id at 417 19 [d

20 United States v Arvzzu 534 U S 266 (2002) 211d

’2 Carroll 1 United States 267 U S 132 (1925), and subsequently refined in Chambers v Maroney 399 U S 42 (1970) and Coolidge 1 NH 403 U S 443 458 464 (1971) 23 Wyoming 1 Houghton 526 U S 295 (1999)

O POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U ST 2023 CR 00156 MEMORANDUM OPINION PAGE 7

1117 Once a violation of Miranda v Arzzona24 is claimed and Defendant alleges facts

demonstrating that Defendant was in custody and sub] ect to interrogation, the burden shifis to the

People to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the police complied with Miranda and

the statement was voluntary 25 In order to demonstrate that a statement was unlawfully obtained,

the accused must demonstrate that the Defendant provided testimonial information during a

custodial interrogation and that there was no knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the

Defendant s Miranda rights under the totality of the circumstances In this context, the Defendant

is in custody if the Defendant is deprived of freedom in any significant way such that a reasonable

person in the Defendant’s position would not feel free to leave under the totality of the

circumstances An interrogation occurs when the Defendant responds to express questioning or

its functional equivalent words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response

IV ANALYSIS

1} 18 Defendant seeks to suppress a Glock 26 with a black ARMA laser TR6 attached to the

trigger guard, a magazine containing fifteen (15) 9mm cartridges; a black conversion kit

modification; a Pearce Grip branded magazine containing fifieen (15) 9mm cartridges, and any

statements made by Defendant at the scene Defendant argues that the physical evidence was

obtained from an illegal search and seizure of his car and any statements made by England, as he

was never advised of his Miranda Rights, are the result of custodial interrogation and should be

suppressed Defendant argues he was unlawfully seized by police who illegally took evidence

from his vehicle and elicited statements from him in violation of his Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth

“ 384 U S 436 475 (1979) 5 Colorado v Connelly 479 U S 157 (1986) POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U ST 2023 CR 00156 MEMORANDUM OPINION PAGE 8

Amendment rights The People argue that officers from the Virgin Islands Police Department had

acted in good faith and did not violate Defendant 5 rights

A There were no exigent circumstances to justify the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle

1119 Exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless search include (1) the danger that

evidence will be destroyed;26 (2) a threat to the safety of the public or law enforcement officers,27

(3) hot pursuit of a suspect;28 and (4) the danger a suspect will flee before a warrant can be

obtained 29 On the facts before the Court, none of those exigencies presented themselves to justify

the warrantless search of the Defendant 8 vehicle

{[20 Nothing in the record suggests that there was any danger that evidence would be destroyed

The police were clearly not in hot pursuit of anyone, and Defendant did not pose a threat to the

safety of the public or Officer Somersall There was also no evidence that Defendant would flee

before a warrant could be obtained Recognizing that there is no exception, the People attempt to

justify the search as inevitable discovery, but do not put forth any testimony or evidence on how

that would have occurred

1121 Further, the only testimony or evidence before the Court is that Officer Somersall saw a

black firearm in a grey pouch There is no evidence as to what type of firearm, if the fireann

contained ammunition, or if any ammunition was recovered Likewise, there is no evidence before

the Court that 21 Glock 26 with a black ARMA laser TR6 attached to the trigger guard a magazine

2‘ Cupp t Murphy 412 U S 291 294 96 (1973) g; garden v Hayden 387 U S 204 298 99 (1967)

”Minnesota v Olson 495 U s 91 100(1990) , November 17, 2023

for