Opinion ID: 2775112
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Handy’s Suppression Motion

Text: In December 2012, Handy filed a motion to suppress any evidence seized by law enforcement on April 5, 2012, as well as any statements attributed to her on that date. Handy requested an evidentiary hearing and argued that the burden was on the government to show that an exception to the warrant requirement existed to justify its warrantless search of the Impala. C. Evidentiary Hearing and Denial of Suppression Motion After the government responded in opposition to the suppression motion, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 10 and 14, 2013. During that hearing, Detective Wagenmann testified for the government, 13 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 14 of 44 describing the events of April 5, 2012, as recounted above. The government also called Kinnebrew to testify, and the defense called Scott to testify. On January 15, 2013, the district court issued an order denying Handy’s motion to suppress. The district court found that the search of the Impala fell within the inventory-search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement because the Police Department’s policy on inventories of impounded or towed cars left no room for discretion and applied to both police-directed and privately requested tows. Finding Detective Wagenmann to be credible, the district court rejected Handy’s argument that Detective Wagenmann had decided on his own, absent instruction from Advantage, to impound the Impala as pretext for searching the car. The district court specifically made a factual finding that, after Advantage’s Heath told Wagenmann that Handy had not contacted Advantage to extend her rental of the Impala, “Detective Wagenmann asked whether Advantage wanted the car impounded, and Heath replied that it did. Accordingly, Detective Wagenmann informed Heath that he would impound the car.” D. Defense Requests for Continuances and Motion for Substitution of Counsel After the ruling in the suppression hearing, Handy’s case was reassigned within the Federal Public Defender’s Office from Patrick Hunt, who left the office, to Assistant Federal Public Defender Chantel Doakes. At a calendar call on 14 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 15 of 44 January 24, 2013, Handy requested a one-week continuance to retain private counsel. The district court granted the request and set the matter for a calendar call on January 30, 2013. At the January 30, 2013, calendar call, Handy had yet to retain private counsel, so the district court granted her request to continue the trial from February 11, 2013, to April 1, 2013, so that Handy could retain private counsel. On March 22, 2013, Assistant Federal Public Defender Doakes filed a motion for determination of counsel, requesting a hearing to determine whether new counsel should be appointed. Doakes reported that, the day before, Handy had “expressed an absence of trust and confidence in defense counsel and advised . . . that she wants a new lawyer appointed to represent her in this matter.” On March 26, 2013, Handy filed pro se a motion to remove appointed counsel, alleging a significant breakdown in communication and refusal on the part of counsel to investigate or file meritorious motions to exclude evidence. Handy claimed that attorney Doakes had shown a “persistent refusal to let [her] explain facts critical to [her] defense, won’t explain strategic decisions or seek input. The attorney client relationship has deteriorated so that the two parties cannot effectively communicate.” Additionally, Handy alleged, “[attorney] Doakes has not displayed any concern for my better interest in the case, and has continuously 15 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 16 of 44 stated that I needed to take a plea bargain, before looking at physical evidence, researching facts, or going through a possible defense for the defendant.” E. Hearing on March 27, 2013 The district court held a hearing on the motions on March 27, 2013, at which Handy addressed the court and generally repeated her allegations that Assistant Federal Public Defender Doakes had refused to review the evidence in her case or develop a defense. Attorney Doakes explained to the district court that, after refusing a conditional plea negotiated with the government by attorney Hunt, Handy had insisted from the time of the January 24 calendar call that she would be retaining private counsel. Moreover, even after Handy told attorney Doakes on March 7 that Handy would “stay with [the Public Defender’s] office,” Handy refused to provide assistance to either Doakes or Doakes’s investigator for trial preparation and instead continued to focus on the unsuccessful motion to suppress. The district court found that Handy’s allegations concerning attorney Doakes were not credible, that Handy had not been cooperating with Doakes, that nothing Handy said indicated that Doakes was not doing her job properly, and that Handy simply was trying to delay the trial. The district court told Handy, “I am not going to give you another attorney. You need to work with the attorney that you have.” 16 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 17 of 44 The district court then held a calendar call for Handy’s case, and the government stated that it had provided defense counsel oral notice that it intended to introduce evidence of Handy’s unauthorized possession of credit cards. Specifically, the evidence included the credit cards in Willie Donnell’s name found in the Impala and testimony by Donnell that she had not authorized Handy to possess the credit cards and that Handy always carried around a black bag that Handy called her “money bag.” In a written notice filed later that day, the government argued that the evidence was admissible either because (1) it was not extrinsic to—and instead was inextricably intertwined with the other evidence of— the charged offenses; or (2) it was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) to demonstrate Handy’s knowing possession of the black backpack and its contents and her intent to defraud. In light of this evidence, Handy’s defense counsel requested, and the district court granted, a one-week continuance of the trial to April 10, 2013. On April 4, 2013, privately retained counsel entered a notice of appearance on behalf of Handy.