Free Brief/Memorandum in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cr-00037-JJF

Document 32

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LINITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,,
V.

Criminal Action No. 08-37-JJF

IRA BLAND,
Defendant.

GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
On the morning of February 9,2008, Kevin Coverdale called 911 to report that aman, later identified as Defendant Ira Bland, was sitting in a vehicle in the area
Streets

of l2tn and Bowers
had

in V/ilmington, Delaware. Mr. Coverdale informed the 911 operator that this man

previously shot his son. Members of the Wilmington Police Department ("WPD") responded to

the area

of

12th and

Bowers Streets, where they encountered Mr. Coverdale. Mr. Coverdale

identified the Defendant, who was sitting

in a

gray Pontiac Bonneville. Based on the

information provided by Mr. Coverdale, the officers approached Defendant to engage in an
investigative Terry stop. During this stop, Defendant Bland indicated that he had a gun in his

pocket. The officers secured
of Defendant' s waistband.

a

Hi-Point, model C-9 9mm pistol, which was found in the left side

In his pretrial motion to suppress (the "Motion")

(DJ

24), Defendant asserts that the

ofhcers lacked the reasonable suspicion required to perform an investigative Terry stop and frisk.

(Mot. fl 3). Accordingly, Defendant contends that all evidence obtained as a result of this
should be suppressed.

stop

(Id. fl a).

Case 1:08-cr-00037-JJF

Document 32

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 2 of 10

Defendant's Motion should be denied because the WPD officers did in fact have the
necessary reasonable suspicion

to perform the investigative stop and frisk. Mr. Coverdale

identified himself and provided detailed information to the 911 operator regarding Defendant's

identity, location, and previous criminal activity. Moreover, upon the off,rcers' arrival at the
scene,

Mr. Coverdale further identified Defendant as the individual

suspected

in his

son's

shooting. Lastly, the frisk of Defendant was appropriate for off,rcer safety, especially in light of
defendant's admission to possessing a gun. Therefore, the government respectfully submits that Defendant's motion should be denied.

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

On February 9,2008, at approximately 11:59 a.m,, Kevin Coverdale called 911 in
V/ilmington, Delaware. (Ex.

B).1 Mr. Coverdale

requested the assistance of a detective who

was familiar with a shooting that took place on December 3I,2007, at abarbershop located at 23'd and Washinglon Streets. (Id. at 1). He explained to the dispatcher that, "the guy that did the

shooting is down here at the shop waiting to get his car, his windows tinted on his car." (Ic!).

Mr. Coverdale then stated that the person in question had previously shot his son. (Id.). Mr.
Coverdale also provided further information about the individual's location and description,
stating that he was at the tint shop on 12tr Street near Gander

Hill, was wearing a yellow jacket

with markings on it, and was drivinga gray Pontiac Bonneville. (Id. at 1-2). Before ending the
call to 911, Mr. Coverdale also provided his name to the operator. (Id. at2).

references to exhibits refer to exhibits moved into evidence at the August 13, 2008 hearing on Defendant's Motion.

lAll

Case 1:08-cr-00037-JJF

Document 32

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 3 of 10

The police dispatcher then radioed Officers Guy DeBonaventura and Matthew Hazzard, the C platoon offrcers for the 13th District in Wilmington. (Tr. at

I3).2

The dispatcher asked the

officers respond to the

tint shop at East l2¡h and Bowers

Streets explaining that

"[a] Mr.

Coverdale called[,] he says his son is a victim of a
suspect is there at the

IX that occurred December 31't and the
is the police code for a homicide. (Tr. at

[t]int [s]hop." (Ex. B

at

2). "IX"

l4).t

The dispatcher went on to explain over the radio that Mr. Coverdale reported "a suspect

for an IX[,]

I

don't have any information other than he's wearing a yellow jacket and is

occupying a or operating a'97 Pontiac that's [sic] he's getting tint on now." (Ex. B at 2).

While Offrcers DeBonavetura and Hazzard, along with other assisting officers, were en

route to the scene, Sergeant George Taylor radioed Sergeant Robert Donovan, a Wilmington
Police Department detective, to inquire about his recollection of a homicide on December 31, 2007. (Id. at 3; Tr. at

6).

Sergeant Donovan responded that he did not remember a homicide
3

occurring on the night of December
Once at the corner

l.o

of

l2th and Bowers Streets. Officer DeBonavetura observed Defendant

sitting in the Pontiac Bonneville. (Tr. at 15). At that time, Mr. Coverdale was still at the scene
and "pointing to the defendant, saying, [']that's him, that's the guy that shot my son.[']" (Id. at

2

All references to "Tr."

refer to the transcript of the August 13, 2008 hearing on

Defendant's Motion.
3

The recording of Mr. Coverdale's 911 call does not indicate that he stated that his son

was killed in the December 31 shooting. See Ex. A.

n During the hearing, Defense counsel raised question about the accuracy of the transcription of Sergeant Donovan's response.(Tr. at 25). Regardless of whether Sergeant Donovan began his response with the words "I don't," he clearly responded in the negative to the question of whether he remembered a homicide occuning on December 31, as opposed to a question of whether a homicide did in fact occur. (Ex. B at 3). Moreover, these semantics have
no bearing on the veracity of the information provided by Mr. Coverdale, who did not state that his son had been killed.

Case 1:08-cr-00037-JJF

Document 32

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 4 of 10

16). The officers then approached the defendant and asked him to step out ofthe car. (Id. at 1617). According to Off,rcer DeBonaventura, Defendant Bland was asked to step out of the car "to
make sure he didn't have a firearm or any type of weapon on him for [Offrcer DeBonaventura's]

safety and the safety of the rest of [his] fellow off,rcers." (Id. at 17). Ofhcer DeBonaventura

then asked defendant to turn around and place his hands on the roof of the car. (Id. at 17).
Defendant complied. Ofhcer DeBonaventura then asked the defendant

if

he had anything that

was going to hurt him.

(Id.).

Defendant responded, "yeah,

I

got a gun." Gd.). As Offrce

DeBonaventura explained at the hearing, "[Defendant] took his left hand off the roof of the car and reached for his gun, at which time, I placed my elbow in the small of his back and pushed

him against the car, at which time, OfficerHazzard secured the weapon." (Id.).

After the firearm, a Hi-Point, model C-9 9mm pistol, was recovered, Defendant was
taken into police custody. (Id. at 19). Following this sequence of events, Officer Hazzard made contact with Mr. Coverdale. who confirmed that he was the individual who made the 911 call.
Gd.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT
The investigative stop and frisk of Defendant Bland was lawful. WPD officers responded

to a detailed 911 call from an individual who identified himself, provided information regarding

a

completed crime, and supplied

a description of the suspect who was believed to have
Combined

committed the completed

crime.

with the informant's

presence and further

identif,rcation of the suspect at the scene of the stop, the officers had the necessary reasonable suspicion to engage in a Terry stop of Defendant.

4

Case 1:08-cr-00037-JJF

Document 32

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 5 of 10

A.

Give The Officers Reasonable Suspicion Sufficient to Justify A T¿rry
Stop Under Terrv v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), "an offrcer may, consistent with the Fourth
Amendment, conduct a

briet investigatory stop when the ofhcer

has a reasonable, articulable

suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." Illinois v. V/ardlow, 528 U.S. I19,I23, (2000) (citation

omitted). Additionally, law enforcement ofhcials may conduct a Terr.y stop based upon

a

reasonable suspicion "that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection

with

a completed

felony." United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221,229(1985); see also Michigan
are justifiable

v. Summers,452 U.S. 692,699 (1981) (holding that certain seizures

"if

there is

articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.") (emphasis

added). Here, the offrcers' reasonable suspicion was based on facts conveyed by an informant.
The informant in this case had specific knowledge of the facts of a previous crime as well as a
then-current location of a suspect in that crime.

"A reasonable suspicion may be the result of any combination of one or several factors:
specialized knowledge and investigative inferences ..., personal observation

of

suspicious

behavior ..., information from sources that have proven to be reliable, and information from
sources that-while unknown to the police-prove by the accuracy and intimacy of the information

provided to be reliable at least as to the details contained within that tip." United States v. Nelson, 284 F.3d 472, 478 (3d Cir. 2002) (intemal citations omitted). The reasonable suspicion
standard is lower than the probable cause needed to arrest an individual. Santiago v. City of 'Where, as here, offtcers are told to Vineland, 107 F.Supp.2d 512, 565 n. 41 (D. N.J. 2000).

investigate a situation by a police dispatchet, "the court must look beyond the specific facts

Case 1:08-cr-00037-JJF

Document 32

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 6 of 10

known to the officers on the scene to the facts known to the dispatcher." United States v. Torres,

- F. 3d -, 2008 WL 2813035

at *2 (3d Cir. Jut.23,2008).

Unlike the large body of caselaw involving anonymous informants, the WPD dispatcher

in this case received detailed information from an informant who identified himself during the

call. "[O]ne of the characteristics of a known informant [, as opposed to an anonymous caller,]
that contributes to reliability is that he or she can be held responsible if the allegations turn out to
be fabricated." U.S. v. Nelson,284 F.3d 472, 482 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S.

266,270 (2000). By identifying himself to the 91 1 operator, Mr. Coverdale exposed himself to
certain risks if his claims were found to be false. See 11 Del. C. $1245 (misdemeanor offense falsely reporting an incident).

of

Additional indicia of the informant's reliability include the presence of information that would not be available to any observer and the tip's ability to predict what

will follow.

See

United States v. Brown,448 F.3d 239,249-50 (3d Cir. 2006). Here, Mr. Coverdale suppliedthe
911 dispatcher with information that the individual believed to have shot his son was at the tint shop at l2th and. Bowers Street. (Ex.

B at 1). This information would not be available to

any

observer and was capable of being tested for its reliability, and at the same time, Mr. Coverdale

could be held accountable

if it were found not to be reliable.

See

United States v. Ouarles, 330

F.3d 650, 656 (4th Cir. 2003) (finding informant reliable for purposes of reasonable suspicion determination where informant provided his name, detailed and precise information about the defendant, and specific information regarding an investigation

of a past crime allegedly

committed by defendant). Additionally, Mr. Coverdale provided a description of Defendant's

yellow coat and his automobile, both facts which were confirmed by the officers who reported to

Case 1:08-cr-00037-JJF

Document 32

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 7 of 10

the scene. (Ex. B at 2; Tr. at

8).

Supplied with the information from Mr. Coverdale, the WPD

offrcers possessed the reasonable suspicion necessary
Defendant once they arrived at the scene.

to perform an investigative stop on

B.

The Officers' Observations At The Scene Further Supported

Upon their arriva| at l2¡h and Bowers Streets, the WPD officers observed a gray Pontiac Bonneville in the middle of the dirt parking lot of the tint shop. (Tr. at 8). Just as Mr. Coverdale indicated in his

9Il

caII, a man wearing a yellow jacket was sitting in that car.

(ld).

Mr.

Coverdale was also still at the scene and was pointing to Defendant Bland indicating that he was

the individual that shot his son.

(þ

at

9). As Officer DeBonaventura

explained, "[Mr.

Coverdale] was like upset. He was like acting kind of like frantic. He was pointing to the car and

saying that's him, that's

him."

(Id.). This scene was especially significant to Offrcer

Debonaventura in that he had "never seen [a complainant] stand around and just point somebody

out like that." (Id. at 18). Given Mr. Coverdale's demeanor at the scene and his description of

the situation, Officer DeBonaventura found Mr. Coverdale's claims "very credible"
proceeded to approach Defendant. (Id.).

and

These observations strengthened the officers suspicion and provided greater justification

for an investigative stop. The offrcers had an opportunity to have a face-to-face encounter with
the informant to assess his credibility and demeanor. See United States v. Christmas, 222 F.3d

l4l,

I44

14th

Cir. 2000) (finding face-to-face encounter with informant helpful in

assessing

reliability of informant). As Officer DeBonaventura testified, Mr. Coverdale's frantic demeanor
indicated he was in fact pointing out the individual believed to have shot his son, and that Mr.

Case 1:08-cr-00037-JJF

Document 32

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 8 of 10

Coverdale probably knew this through conversations with his son. (Tr. at 18). This emotional reaction made it more likely that the tip was reliable and had a factual basis. Once the officers established the reasonable suspicion to stop and question Defendant

Bland, they approached his vehicle and asked him to step out of the vehicle. "fP]rotection of

police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the
suspect poses a danger." Michigan

v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983). Furthermore, while

Defendant's Motion appears to argue otherwise (Mot. fl3), any individual stopped for questioning pursuant

to Terry may also be frisked. Burbage v. City of Wilmington,46l F.Supp.2d 236,

242 (D. Del. 2006) ("Terry recognized that in order to continue the investigation without fear of

violence, a police officer may conduct a pat down or frisk of the individual."). Here, as Officer
DeBonaventura explained, the officers "were going [to the scene] for a homicide suspect. [He]

wanted make sure that the area was secure for [his] safety. [He] didn't know Bland] had a weapon on him or not." (Tr. atlT).

if

[Defendant

The officers did not immediately frisk Defendant Bland, however. With his hands on the

roof of his car, Defendant Bland indicated to the officers that he had a gun on his person. (Id.).

At this point, the officers had probable
Deadly
'Weapon. See 11 Del.

cause

to arrest Defendant for Carrying a Concealed

C. ç1442. After hearing that the he had a gun, the officers frisked

Defendant Bland and removed the gun from his waistband.
weapons search, the officers

By engaging in this protective

lawfully ensured their safety and the safety of others, and were then

in a position to continue their investigation. (Id. at 18-19).

Case 1:08-cr-00037-JJF

Document 32

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 9 of 10

C.

Communications With Sereeant Donovan Did Not Diminish The Officers' Reasonable Suspicion

Defendant appears to argue that Sergeant Donovan's statement to Sergeant Taylor that he

did not recall a homicide occurring on December 31, 2007 , somehow invalidated the reasonable suspicion developed through

Mr. Coverdale's tip and the officer's observations at l2th and,

Bowers Streets. (Id. at 23-25). This argument is flawed on many levels. First, Sergeant
Donovan did not state that there was not a homicide on December 31, only that he did not recall
one occurring on that date. (Ex. B at

3).

Second,

Mr. Coverdale never indicated that his son was

killed.

Regardless of what the dispatcher communicated to the V/PD officers, "the knowledge

of

the dispatcher is imputed to the officers in the field when determining the reasonableness of the

Terry stop." Torres, 2008 WL 2813035

at*2.

The dispatcher knew that a frantic Mr. Coverdale

was reporting the location of the man he believed to have shot his son. (Ex. B at 1).

Rather than parsing the words

of informants, dispatchers, and officers, as the Third

Circuit recognizes, courts should not "fault the officers' choice to forgo extensive credibility
checking

in order to quickly respond. The business of policemen and firemen is to act, not

speculate or meditate on whether the report is correct. People could well die in emergencies

if

police tried to act with the calm deliberation associated with the judicial process." Torres, 2008

WL2813035 at *5 (quotingUnited Statesv. Sanchez, 519 F.3d 1208,1211 n. 1 (10thCir.2008)
(emphasis in

original)). The WPD offlrcers acted accordingly in the present

case as they received

a credible tip from a known informant, further confirmed that credibility at the scene, and
proceeded to engage in an investigative stop and frisk which resulted in the discovery of a gun.

Case 1:08-cr-00037-JJF

Document 32

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 10 of 10

CONCLUSION \üHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant's
Motion to Suppress. Respectfully submitted,

COLM F. CONNOLLY T.]NITED STATES ATTORNEY

f>-z---..
John C. Sriyder Assistant United States Attorney

--

Geoffrey G. Grivner Special Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: August 25,2008

10