F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 20 , 2 005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1328 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 60 14 4- CR-J AG UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us DA VI D S EA RS, DENS IL JON ES , a. k.a. De nsil Rolle, D ef en dant- Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 20, 200 5)

Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

D en sil Jon es w as c onvi ct ed of the f oll ow ing of

fe nse s: c onsp ir ing to poss es s w iththe int en t t o di str ibu te f ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne in vio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 )( A )( ii) , and 8 46; pos se ssi ng w iththe int en t t o di str ibu te fi ve or m or e kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne in vio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ) an d (b )( 1) (i i) ; and c onsp ir ing to launde r m one y in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 1956 (a )( 1) (A )( i) , ( B) (i ), and ( h) . H e w as se nte nc ed to 188 m onths o f im pr iso nm en t and f

ive y ears of

sup er vis ed r el ea se . D av id S ears w as a lso convicted of consp iring to po ssess with intent to distribu te five kilogram s or m ore of c oc ai ne and c onsp ir ing to launde r m one y . I n a ddi tio n, S ears w as c onvi ct ed of
m ai nta ini ng a

dw el lin g f

or the pur pose of dis tr ibu tin g or

usi ng m ar ij uanaand co ca ine in vio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. § 85 6( a) (1 ) an d 18 U . S. C. § 2; pos se ssi ng w ith int en t t o di str ibu te at l ea st 5 00 g ram s of c oc ai ne in vio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. §§ 841( a) (1 ) an d ( b) (1 )( B) (i i) and 1 8 U . S. C. § 2; and l aunde ri ng m one y in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. §§ 1 956( a) (1 )( A )( i) , B( i) , and 2 . S ea rs w as se nte nc ed

to lif e in p ri son and ten y ears of supervised release. Bo th J one s and S ears arg ue on a ppe al that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing their m otion s to sup press evidence. Jones also argues th at the district court abused its discretion b y

ref using to grant Def

endants addi tional perem ptory challenges during v oir dire and by

deny ing hi s m otion for a m istrial based on the pros ecutor's3

co m m en ts d ur ing c los ing arg um en ts.

I. F acts and P rocedu ral Back ground At around 7: 00 a.m . on June 20, 2003, Brow ard County Sherif f's off icers
w er e co nduc tin g surv ei llanc e an d pr ep ar ing to ex ec ute ase ar chw ar rant o n De fendant Sear s' house in Lauderhill, F lorida. T he warrant authorized a se arch not on ly of the house and its contents bu t also a searc h of all people connected th erewi th an d o f al l v eh ic le s wi th in th e cu rti la ge . At ap pr ox im at el y 11 :0 0 a .m ., a vehicle approached the house. Sears w alked outsi de and spok e w ith the driver,
w ho h an de d hi m

aw hit e pla sti c ba g th at

w as w ei ghe d do w n w ithbr ic k- lik e ob jects . Sears to okth e b ag in to hi s h ou se . T hirty m inu te s late r Se ar s c am e ba ck out sid e, got

int o hi s c ar , and b eg anto drive aw ay . Sergeant Nathan O sgoo d pull ed his vehicle behin d Sear s' and flashed his blu e lig hts . S ears sto ppe d a ppr oxi m at el y

100 f ee t f ro m his hou se . O sgoo d, we aring a black police raid shirt and his badg e, approached the car and told Sears that the poli ce w ere getting rea dy to execute a search w arrant for narcotics at Se ar s' hou se . O sgoo d sa id the pol ic e of fi ce rs c oul d pe rf

orm a"h ar d" en tr

y by breaching the door or a "soft" entry if Se ars w ouldgive them a key . Sear s responded bysay ing "You got m e. I got one . . . under the bed." When asked wha t h e m ean t, Se ars rep li edth athe ha d a ki lo gr am of c oc ai ne un de r hi s b ed . At4

that po int , O sgoo d a ske d S ears to sto p ta lki ng and r ea d hi m his Mi randar igh ts, w hic h S ears a gr ee d to w ai ve . O ff ic er s th enhandc uf

fe d S ears and l ed

him to a se cure loc at ion . U sin g th e ke y

pr ovi de d by

S ears , of fi ce rs e nte re d th e hous e an d c ondu ct ed a search using a trained narcotics dog. T he dog lo cated a bag c ontaini ng a kilog ram of c oc ai ne und er

the be d inthe m as te r be dr oom . O ff ic er s a lso f

ound $40 , 900 in curr en cy in a w hit e pla sti c ba g and anothe r $365 , 000 in a duf fe l ba g. During the searc h, O sgoo d brough t Sear s back to the hou se. Sear s inform ed the of fi ce rs that hi s su

ppl ie r w oul d be arr ivi ng s hortly and a dvi se d th em

to m ove the ir c ar s. S ears sub se que ntl y r ec ei ve d ac al l onhis c el l ph one . R ec ogni zi ng the num be r as that of

his sup pli er , S ears answ er ed the pho ne and h el d it

so tha t the officer s could lis ten in on th e call. T he caller , who had a Caribbean acc ent, a sked if every thing wa s okay , say ing he had seen a car with two white m en in it parked in front of Sear s' house. S ears a ssured the caller that ever ything wa s fine and that t h e me n i n th e c a r

w e r e h i s n e i g h b o r s . T h e c a l l e r th e n s a i dth a th e w o u l d" c o me ov er an d b rin g [S ears ] fiv e." W ith in tw o m inu te s of

that ph one c al l, am ini van pu lle d in to S ears ' dr ive w ay . S ears inf

orm ed the of fi ce rs that the dr ive r w as his sup pli er . O sgoo d rad io edhi s t eam , and po li ce v eh ic le s p ul le d i nt o t he dri ve way be hi nd th e v an .5

D ef en dant J one s w as a lon e in the van. Jon es w as de ta ine d w hil e of fi ce rs w al ke d a narcotics dog aroundthe van. T he dog led th e office rs to discover a duffel bag co nta ini ng f

if te enkil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne in the ba ck

of the van. A t so m e poi nt dur ing thi s pr oc es s, of

fi ce rs a dvi se d Jo ne s of

his Mi randar igh ts and f

orm al ly pla ce d hi m

und er arr es t. Pr ior to tr ia l, S ears and J one s m ove d to sup pr es s th e ev ide nc e that the officer s collected during th e June 20 search. Sears argued that the office rs lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his car and that all subsequent ly discovered evidence
w as f ru it of the poi sono us tre e. Jon es sim ilarl y arg ue d th at

the re w as no l aw fu l ground s for the offic ers to stop him or sear ch his vehicle. T he district court denied the m oti ons af

te r a he ar ing . A t the start

of the j ur y se le ct ionpr oc es s, the dis tr ic t c ourt i nf orm ed the part ie s th at

the gov er

nm en t w oul d be giv ense ve n pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge s and D ef en dants w oul d c oll ec tiv el y r ec ei ve tw el ve . D ef

en dants use d th re e of

the ir pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge s onj ur or s th at the y ha d un suc ce ssf

ull y a tte m pte d to ch al le nge f

or c au se . A ft er

e xhaust ing the ir

pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge s, D ef

en dants re que ste d th at

the c ourt gr an t the m

m or e so tha t the y

c oul d stri ke Ms . Ma ga ly Mart z, aj ur or

a ga ins t w hom

the y a dm itt ed ly

ha d no c ha lle nge f

or c au se . T he court denied this request, and Ms. Martz w as seated as the tw elfth j uror.On appe al, J ones aba ndons his improper comment on the e vidence argument, instead 1 arguin gthat th e pr os e c uto r w a s im pr op e rl y re mark ingon

De fe nd ants ' a sse rt ion

of the ir F if th Am e ndme nt r ig hts . 6 Dur in g t ria l, g ov ern m en t wi tn es se s t es ti fie d t o t he fact s as de sc rib edab ov e. D ef en dants of

fe re d no e vid en ce . D ur ing c los ing arg um en ts, one of the pr ose cu tor s sa id the f

oll ow ing : What did David Sear s tell y ou? D avid Sears said that he had been do in g t hi s o ve r ap pr ox im at el y a si x m on th s t im e, an d t ha t's why we started this ind ictm ent. I ncidentally , the c onsp iracy we [sic] started in J anuary . T he j udge is goi ng t o te ll y ou o n or about , and the in di ct m en t s ay s " on or abo ut ." W e d on 't k no w th e ex actda te . N obody kno w s. S om eb ody

doe s, but w e don' t. W e don' t kn owthe exact date. O n or about is fine. Jone s ob j ec te d to thi s st at em en t and m ove d f or am istri al on the gr ound s th at the statem ent constitu ted an im proper com

m ent on the evidence. T he district court 1 de nie d th e m oti on. II. St andards of R eview This court review s the denial of a m otion to supp ress under a m ixed standard , r ev ie w ing the dis tr ic t c ourt' s f ind ing s of

f ac t f or c le ar e rr or and i ts ap pli catio n of

lawto tho se f

ac ts d e novo . U nit ed

S tate s v. F loy d, 281 F . 3d 1 346, 1348 (11th Cir. 2002). W e re view the district court's distribution of perem ptory ch al le ng es an d i ts de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. U nit ed S ta te s v. Ro m er o, 780 F . 2d 9 81, 984 ( 11th C ir . 198 6) ; U nit ed S ta te s v.Se ars a lso argue s at le ng th t hat th e of fi c e rs se arc he d h is c ar i n v iol atio n o f t he F ourt h 2 Amendment. This ar gument is a red he rring , as Sear s points to no evidence pr oduced by the alleg ed unconstitutional sear ch of his vehic le. 7 Ettinger, 344 F.3d 1149 , 1161 (11th Cir. 2003). III . D isc us sio n A . T he Mo tio ns t o S uppr es s Se ar s arg ue s th at

he w as se iz ed

in vio la tio n of

the F ourth A m en dm en t be ca use the of fi ce rs w ho s top pe d hi s c ar la ck ed pr oba ble c au se to do s o. T his 2 argum ent m isses the m ark. Bec ause the officer s had a valid war rant to searc h Se ar s' hom e, the y

ha d aba sis to de ta in h im dur ing the se ar ch . S ee Mi ch igan v. Sum m ers, 452 U.S . 692, 705 101 S. Ct. 2587 , 2595 (1981) ("[A] warrant to sear ch for contraband founded on probable cause im plicitlycar

ries w ith it the lim ited au tho ri ty to de ta in the oc cu

pants of the pr em ise s w hil e a pr ope r se ar chis conducted."). Whether the office rs had probable cause to pull Sears over ind ep en de ntl y

of the se ar chw ar

rant i s ir re le vant. W e fi nd the f

ac ts o f thi s c as e to b e virtua lly ind ist ing uis hable f

ro m tho se in U nit ed S ta te s v. Co ch ran, 939 F . 2d 3 37 ( 6thCi r. 199 1) . I n C oc hr an , a s inthi s case, police officer s wer e prepar ing to execute a search w arrant at the defendant's hom e w he n th e de fe ndant g ot i nto his c ar and dro ve aw ay . I d. a t 33 8. B el ie vin g it better to enter the def

endant's hom e w ith his cooperation than forcibly , the off icers8

st op pe d t he de fen da nt 's c ar an d re qu es te d h is ass is ta nc e in en te rin g t he ho us e. Id . Rely ing on Sum

m ers, the Sixth Circuit held that the detentio n was proper even t h o u g h i to cc u rr ed a s h o rt d i s t an ce fr o m th e d ef en d an t 's h o m e. Id . a t3 3 9 . We agree with the Sixth Circuit that no const itutio nal violatio n occurs when off icers who are preparing to serve a valid sear ch warrant stop and detain an ind ividu al who is in the process of leaving the prem ises to be searched. T hat the stop d oes not oc cur on the pr em ise s to be se ar ch ed is ir re le vant s o lo ng a s th e of fi ce rs de ta in the ind ivi dua l a s so on a s pr ac tic ab le a ft er his de part

ur e. S ee id. B ec au se no co nst itu tio na l vi olatio n oc curr ed , the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly de nie d S ears ' m oti on to sup press evidence obtained as a result of his seizure. Inthe a lte rn at ive , w e co nc lud e that the re w as a m ple j ust if ic at ionto sto p Sear s’ vehicle. The c om

binatio n of the inform ation po ssessed bythe officer s as supp ort f or the se ar chw ar

rant and the ir

obs er va tio ns o f Se ar s’ a ct ion s im m ed ia te ly pr ior to the sto p c onst itu te d pr oba ble c au se to be lie ve S ears w as inv olv ed in poss ession and /or traff

icking o f coca ine. Jone s a lso arg ue s th at

the pol ic e la ck ed

pr oba ble c au se or

e ve n ar ea sona

ble susp icion to st op and search his person and v ehicle. W e disagree. T he officer s w er e ex ec uti ng a

va lid se ar chw ar

rant tha t a llo w ed

the m to se ar chS ears ' hom e an d al l ve hic le s lo cate d onit s c urtil ag e. O nc e Jone s pu lle d hi s van in to S ears '9

dr ive w ay , his ve hic le w as loc at ed on the c urtil ag e. I t w as the re fo re sub j ec t t o search under the ter

m s of the warrant. Bec ause the searc h of Jones' vehicle wa s va lid , the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly de nie d Jo ne s' m oti on t o su ppr es s th e re sul tin g ev ide nc e. I n th e al te rn at ive , the re w as a m ple pr oba ble c au se to ar

re st J one s and search his vehicle. B. The P erem

ptory Challenges The F ederal R

ules of Crim inal Procedure pr ovid e that, in a non-capital fe lon y c as e, the gov er

nm en t i s e nti tle d to six pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge s and the defendants are c ollectively entitled to ten. Fed. R. Crim . P . 24(b)( 2). The c ourt ha s di sc re tio n to a llo wa ddi tio na l c ha lle nge s or to al lowde fe ndants to ex er ci se their challenges separately or j ointl y . Fed. R. Crim . P . 24(b). While the district court gave De fendants in thi s case tw o m ore pere m ptory challenges than the law re qui re d, Jon es arg ue s th at the num be r w as sti ll ins uf

fi ci en t. I n su

ppor t of thi s argum ent, he notes that De fendants wer e forc ed to use perem ptory challenges ag ai ns t t hr ee jur or s af

te r th ei r ch al le ng es forcau se were d en ie d. W e fi rs t no te that Jo ne s do es not c ha lle nge the dis tr ic t c ourt' s r uli ngs on the three ca use challenges in qu estion. How ever, even if he had done so, "a defendant's exerc ise of perem ptory challenges pursuant to Rule 24(b) is not denied or im pa ir ed w he n th e de fe ndant c hoos es to ex er ci se ape re m pto ry c ha lle nge toAs noted above , J ones initially claimed that the r emar

k constituted an improper 3 c omm e nt o n th e e vid e nc e . T his lin e of argume nt h a s b e e n a

ba nd on e d o n a

pp e a l. 10 re m ove aj ur or

w ho s houl d have be enr em ove d f or c au se . " Unit ed

S ta te s v. Mart ine z- Sa la zar, 528 U . S. 304 , 120 S . Ct . 774 ( 2000 ). Jon es ' abil ity to ex er ci se perem ptory challenges wa s in no way im paired in this case, and the dis trict court did not abuse it s di sc re tio n by

de cl ini ng t o gr an t a ddi tio na l c ha lle nge s. C. T he Cl osi ng A rg um en ts Jone s f ina lly arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in not gr an tin g am istri al in
r e s p o n s e t o th e p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e men tdu r i n g c l o s i n g ar g u men t s th a t" s o meb o d y" knew the exac t starting date of the conspiracy . He alleges that this cons tituted im pr ope r co m

m en tary on D ef en dants ' de ci sio n to e xe rc ise the ir F if th A m en dm en t ri ght s. Apr ose cu tor ' s st at em en t on ly vio la te s ade fe ndant' s F if th A m en dm en t 3 ri ght to re m ai n si le nt i f it w as ( 1) "m an if es tly int en de d to be ac om

m en t onthe de fe ndant' s f

ai lur e to t es tif

y ;" or ( 2) "o f suc h ac hara ct er

that the j ur

y w oul d na tur al ly and n ec es sari ly

take it to be ac om

m en t onthe f

ai lur e of the a cc use d to testify ." Isaacs v. He ad, 300 F. 3d 12 32, 1270 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). T he prosecutor's co m m en t i n th is c as e cl earl y

doe s no t r ise to thi s le ve l. T ak enin co nte xt, the co m m en t w as li ke ly

no m or e than an a tte m

pt t o e xpl ai n to the j ur

y w hy the ind ic tm en t us ed

the phr as e "onor

about " whe n de sc ri bin g th e start da te of the11

ch ar ge d c onsp ir ac y . T he dis tr ic t c ourt c er ta inl y did not abuse it s di sc re tio n in de ny ing the m oti on f

or am istri al on the ba sis of the pr ose cu tor ' s st at em en t. IV . C on cl us ion Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , the dis tr ic t c ourt' s de ci sio n inthi s c as e is AFFIR MED.