Court Opinion

ID: 9956299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 19:00:42.45661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:48.390551
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12902    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/01/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12902
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       BILLY A. LANEY, JR.,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:23-cr-00006-MW-MJF-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12902      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/01/2024     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12902

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRANCH,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Billy Laney, Jr., appeals his conviction for possessing with
       intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a substance containing fen-
       tanyl. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vi). Laney challenges the de-
       nial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.
              After a federal grand jury indicted Laney for possessing with
       intent to distribute 40 grams of a substance containing fentanyl, id.,
       and possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, 18
       U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), he moved to suppress the evidence
       seized from him and the 2014 Nissan Pathfinder that he was driv-
       ing. He argued that around 9:00 p.m. on February 8, 2022, Officer
       Demetri Smolkin stopped him for “a malfunctioning tag light.” Af-
       ter observing a package of marijuana on the front seat and stating
       that he smelled “fresh marijuana,” Smolkin searched Laney and
       found several bags of marijuana and a bag containing two pills.
       Smolkin arrested Laney, and a search of the vehicle revealed a fire-
       arm and a black backpack that contained loose marijuana, a mason
       jar of marijuana, and a mason jar of pills. Laney argued that Smol-
       kin lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop because the li-
       cense plate was illuminated and complied with Florida law.
              The district court held a hearing on the motion. Officer
       Eryka Brueckner testified that she responded to Smolkin’s call for
       assistance. Although she did not observe the tag light, Smolkin told
USCA11 Case: 23-12902       Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 04/01/2024      Page: 3 of 7

       23-12902                Opinion of the Court                            3

       her that he stopped Laney for a tag light violation. Brueckner
       watched Smolkin recover two cell phones from Laney’s pockets.
       On cross-examination, she stated that Smolkin’s police car was
       parked no more than ten feet behind the Pathfinder and that the
       lights from the police car reflected on the back of the Pathfinder.
              April Hantzis, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement
       Administration, testified that one of Laney’s cell phones contained
       a text message thread that appeared to be family members discuss-
       ing the traffic stop. One text message from “Nicki” stated, “Dad
       that light above my tag has NEVER worked.” Hantzis explained
       that “Nicki” was Laney’s girlfriend, Domonique Goodine, who
       owned the Pathfinder. Hantzis testified regarding a YouTube video
       that depicted the tag lightbulbs of a 2017 Pathfinder being changed.
       She reviewed images of a model 2014 Pathfinder and concluded
       that the tag light area appeared the same on the 2017 model.
              The government introduced five photographs, Exhibits
       2A-2E, of the license plate area of the 2014 Pathfinder taken on the
       night of the traffic stop, all depicting different angles of the tag light
       area, as well as videos from the body cameras of Brueckner, Smol-
       kin, and Smolkin’s supervisor, Corporal Maguadog. The govern-
       ment acknowledged Smolkin’s questionable credibility and “signif-
       icant disciplinary history” that resulted in his termination from two
       police departments within a year but argued that his testimony
       about the tag light was supported by the evidence. Smolkin testi-
       fied that the reason for the traffic stop was a malfunctioning tag
USCA11 Case: 23-12902      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/01/2024     Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12902

       light that was “out completely” and that he could not see any light
       on the license plate from 50 feet away.
               Roy Tomlinson, a certified service manager at a Nissan deal-
       ership who had over 30 years of experience in automobile repair,
       testified that he had worked on Pathfinders and changed tag lights.
       Tag lights usually turned on automatically when the parking lights
       or headlights were on, and the 2014 and 2017 Pathfinder tag light
       areas were “practically identical,” with two lightbulbs under each
       top corner of the tag area. Tomlinson inspected the government’s
       photographs and stated that although the headlights from the po-
       lice car behind the Pathfinder were “right on the tag” and made it
       difficult to determine whether the tag lights were on, he thought
       that in four of the five photographs “it [did not] appear [that the tag
       lights] are on to me.” As for the fifth photograph, Exhibit 2C, he
       stated, “I don’t see the tag lights.”
               On cross-examination, Tomlinson explained that although
       it was rare for both tag lightbulbs to be out at the same time, “[y]ou
       do see it.” He clarified that he could not say with certainty whether
       the tag lights were off in four of the photographs, but regarding
       Exhibit 2C, he confirmed that it “doesn’t appear the tag lights are
       on in that picture to me” because the tag light area was “not light-
       ing up to the top of the license plate” even though the taillights
       were on. The district court inquired whether the dent on the right
       side of the back of the Pathfinder might have affected the tag light
       wiring, but Tomlinson could not say so without inspecting the lift-
       gate. On re-direct examination, he clarified that it was possible for
USCA11 Case: 23-12902     Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 04/01/2024     Page: 5 of 7

       23-12902               Opinion of the Court                         5

       both tag lightbulbs to be out due to a wiring or fuse issue, two bad
       lightbulbs, or damage to the vehicle.
               Kassandra Perez, a criminal defense investigator, testified
       that she visited a Nissan dealership and video-recorded her inspec-
       tion of the tag light area of another 2014 Pathfinder. Perez stated
       that two tag lightbulbs were above the license plate. Regarding Ex-
       hibit 2C, Perez stated that the light illuminating the license plate
       “looked like it was coming from the tag light.” After the defense
       introduced a still photograph from one of the body camera videos,
       Perez stated that the tag lights appeared to be on but on cross-ex-
       amination acknowledged that the source of the illumination was
       not “crystal clear.” On cross examination, Perez stated that “those
       lights could be reflections from the car parked behind it. But it can
       also be—it’s impossible to tell.”
               The district court denied Laney’s motion to suppress. It ex-
       plained that although Smolkin’s testimony alone would have been
       “problematic” due to his disciplinary history, his testimony was
       corroborated by other evidence. Smolkin consistently referred to
       Laney’s “tag light” during the traffic stop, which was verifiable by
       his supervisor who was on the scene, and the text message from
       Laney’s girlfriend corroborated that the tag light did not work. The
       district court also found persuasive Tomlinson’s testimony that,
       despite many of the blurry photographs depicting illumination
       from other sources, he saw no working tag lights in Exhibit 2C:
             When I look at [Exhibit 2C], . . . I see no reflection, no
             light, either at the top of the tag or below the tag. It
USCA11 Case: 23-12902      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/01/2024     Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12902

              simply is not illuminated. And that is consistent with
              what was said in the text messages . . . , which is con-
              sistent with what [Smolkin] testified he saw that
              night, which is consistent with what was written in
              the report, which his consistent with what he said to
              Mr. Laney when he pulled him over.

              Laney pleaded guilty to the possession charge, reserving the
       right to appeal the ruling on his motion, and the government dis-
       missed the firearm charge. The district court sentenced Laney to
       60 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
              When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we re-
       view legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for clear error,
       and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the gov-
       ernment. United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 870 (11th Cir.
       2022).
              Laney argues that the district court erred in ruling that the
       government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his
       tag lights did not work on the night of the traffic stop and that
       Smolkin lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. He contends that
       the evidence failed to corroborate Smolkin’s unreliable testimony.
       We disagree.
              The district court committed no error in denying Laney’s
       motion to suppress. The record supports the finding that neither
       tag lightbulb worked and that Smolkin initiated the traffic stop with
       reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. See id. at 880; Fla. Stat.
       § 316.221(2) (requiring that license plates be illuminated by a
USCA11 Case: 23-12902      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/01/2024     Page: 7 of 7

       23-12902               Opinion of the Court                          7

       “taillamp or separate lamp” so that the rear license plate is “clearly
       legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear.”). Smolkin testified
       that he stopped Laney because his tag light was “out completely.”
       Smolkin told Brueckner and Maguadog the same reason, and the
       same was recorded in a written report. As the district court ex-
       plained, Smolkin’s credibility issues and multiple disciplinary prob-
       lems at different police departments were serious but, in the light
       of supporting evidence, did not establish that he falsified a reason
       for the traffic stop. Other evidence corroborated Smolkin’s testi-
       mony, including the text message from Laney’s girlfriend to family
       members after the traffic stop in which she acknowledged that the
       “light above [the] tag” had never worked. And a certified automo-
       bile repairman testified that, despite the police car headlights mak-
       ing it difficult to tell whether the tag lights were on, the tag lights
       “[did not] appear” to be on in most of the photographs, and in one
       photograph, Exhibit 2C, he did not “see the tag lights” at all. The
       district court agreed with Tomlinson’s assessment of the photo-
       graph and independently found that there was “no reflection, no
       light, either at the top of the tag or below the tag. It simply is not
       illuminated.” Laney has failed to establish that the findings by the
       district court were clearly erroneous. See United States v. Shabazz,
       887 F.3d 1204, 1215 (11th Cir. 2018).
              We AFFIRM Laney’s conviction and sentence.