Opinion ID: 4026388
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Doxey’s Motion to Suppress

Text: In June 2014, Doxey filed a motion to suppress the evidence, including the drugs found on him. In his motion, Doxey challenged the stop of his vehicle and argued he did not consent to the search of his vehicle or person. Alternatively, Doxey argued if he did consent, the consent No. 14-2600 United States v. Doxey Page 6 was involuntary. Doxey did not specifically argue that a warrant was required for the bag of heroin retrieved from in-between his buttocks. Instead, Doxey argued that the initial traffic stop and initial search violated the Fourth Amendment and that therefore, all evidence subsequently obtained should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). (R. 40, Brief in Support of Motion to Suppress, PageID# 82, 84.) The government opposed the motion, arguing that there was no traffic stop to begin with, that Doxey consented to each of the searches, and that the body search was justified as a parole search. At the suppression hearing on July 16, 2014, the government called three witnesses: Agent Staple, a Michigan Department of Corrections parole officer; Trooper Marshall; and Lieutenant Fias. Trooper Marshall and Lieutenant Fias testified about the events leading to Doxey’s arrest on July 30, 2013. Agent Staple testified that he supervised Doxey’s parole, and explained that as a condition of his parole, Doxey was required to “voluntarily consent to a search of [his] person and property upon demand by a peace officer or parole officer,” with the only limitation being that a search could not be conducted for purposes of harassment or intimidation. (R. 52 at 119-22.) Agent Staple also explained that Doxey was prohibited from driving as a condition of his parole. Against the advice of his counsel, Doxey chose to take the stand on his own behalf. During his examination and cross-examination, Doxey claimed he stopped his car because another car was following closely behind and that Trooper Marshall jumped out of his car, gun drawn, yelling, “State Police. Put the car in park.” (Id. at 179-80.) Doxey testified that he did not consent to the officer’s search of his vehicle, but that he consented to a search of his person. Doxey then gave the following testimony about what had occurred at the police department: I never consented to [a third body search]. They took the handcuffs off me, sir, and they asked me for consent. I told them during the interview I said I told them call my [parole officer], because I know I got [to] consent. I knew I got to consent to search my person, got to let you three times, why I got to give a strip search, and when I denied that, that was when they were determined to get a strip search on me, so they took the handcuffs off, and they told me that either you [are] going to consent to a strip search or we [are] going to do it anyway. And I never consented, so that’s when they went-- they just one grabbed, had this arm No. 14-2600 United States v. Doxey Page 7 and one had this arm, they had my legs, they just pulled me each way and Detective Fias stuck his hand and stuck his finger in my behind and-- (Id. at 187.) The district court credited the officers’ testimony over that of Doxey’s. The district court then denied Doxey’s motion to suppress, finding that the officers’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The district court first found that Doxey consented to the initial search of both his person and his vehicle. The district court also found that the officers’ subsequent searches of Doxey’s person were justified as parole searches. With respect to the station house search, the district court summarized this point by noting: [Doxey] is taken to the police department at some point in time. Prior to an additional search of Mr. Doxey, contact with his parole officer is made, the officers become armed with . . . specific information that Mr. Doxey is required to consent to a search of his person, and a search of his person is then performed while he is at the police station and the nine grams of heroin are found in Mr. Doxey’s butt cheeks. (Id. at 208.) The district court concluded by asking if either party wanted additional factual findings and legal conclusions regarding its ruling, but neither party did.