IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS )
) CASE NO ST 2023 CR 00156
Plaintiff, )
)
V )
)
LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND )
)
Defendant ) 2023 VI Super 69U
E4
WW
{[1 THIS MATTER came before the Court on November 6, 2023, for a hearing on Defendant
Laquan Esson England’s (“England or Defendant ) Motion to Suppress, filed September 21
, 2023
The People of the Virgin Islands (‘ the People ) did not file a response to the Motion '
Assistant
Attorney General Ebette M Fortune appeared on behalf of the People Defendant England
appeared and was represented by David J Cattle, Esquire The People called, as their only
witness
and evidence, Virgin Islands Police Department Officer Aisha Somersall For the reasons stated
herein, the Court finds that the actions of the police violated the Fourth Amendment rights
of the
Defendant to be free fi°0m unreasonable searches and seizures and Defendant was in custody
and
subject to custodial interrogation without having been advised of his Mzranda rights Therefor
e,
the motion to suppress is granted
I BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
{[2 On May 11, 2023, the People filed a five count criminal information against Defenda
nt
charging (l) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm with a Conversion Kit in violation
of VI
' At the discovery conference on September 25, 2023, the People requested two weeks to respond
to Defendant s
motion to suppress The Court granted the request and issued an Order on September
28 2023 directing the People
to respond by October It 2023 Despite the People requesting additional time to respond
and this Corut s Order, an
opposition and/or a response was never filed by the People
1A
POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U
ST 2023 CR 00156
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAGE 2
CODE ANN tit 14, § 2253(6), (2) Unauthorized Possession of a Machine Gun in violation of
14
V I C §§ 2253(b) and (d)(2); (3) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm within one Thousand
Feet
of a School in violation of 14 V I C § 2252(f); (4) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm in
violation of 14 V I C § 2253(3); and (5) Unauthorized Possession of Ammunition in violation
of
14 V I C § 2256(a)(3) The matter came before the Court for Arraignment on May 12 2023
and
England entered pleas of “not guilty” to all counts
113 At the suppression hearing on November 6, 2023, the People called one witness Officer .
Aisha Somersall of the Virgin Islands Police Department Defendant s counsel examined the
People’s witness but did not call any witnesses The People did not offer any exhibits as evidence
1|4 England argues that the police officer 8 warrantless search of his vehicle on April 23, 2023,
was an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
As such, England argues that the firearm that was taken as evidence during this search should
be
suppressed as fi'uit of an unconstitutional seizure and any statements made are also subject to
suppression because any statements made were without a voluntary waiver of his rights against
self incrimination and rights to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the Revised
Organic Act The People argue that Officer Somersall acted in good faith and the firearm was
obtained legally The People also mentioned the firearm would have inevitably been discovere
d,
however, the People did not put forth any evidence of how this would have occurred The People
also did not address whether Defendant s statements were legally obtained
11 FACTS
115 On April 23, 2023, Virgin Islands Police Officer Aisha Somersall was dispatched to a car
accident in Hospital Ground, involving only one vehicle Upon am'val, Officer Somersall saw
a
POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U
ST 2023 CR 00156
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAGE 3
white Jeep Wrangler had struck a pole The driver was in the Jeep, and it was still running
The
Jeep was stopped, and the driver was unresponsive
1J6 Officer Somersall knocked several times on the glass window and tried to wake the driver
up but was unable She noticed the driver’s foot was on the brake and the car was still
in drive
Officer Somersall opened the door, placed the car in park, and attempted to wake the driver up
again by tapping on his shoulder, calling out to him, and shaking him a bit
17 Officer Somersall then called 911 for emergency services Officer Somersall was trained
to try to wake people up if they are unresponsive She looked around the car to see if he had
identification, looked at his Jewelry to see if he had a medical assistance bracelet, looked
for his
wallet to see if there was any identification or medication, but she did not find a wallet Officer
Somersall then opened a small grey pouch near the emergency brake, near the unresponsive
male,
and saw black firearm
118 Officer Somersall did not observe any blood and did not smell alcohol When Defendant
woke up, he was confused and out of it When Officer Somersall asked Defendant if he was
ok
and to stand up and come out of the car, he did Officer Somersall then asked if the grey pouch
was his, and he said yes She also asked if he knew what was inside the pouch Officer
Somersall
also remembered him saying the gun was not his She then placed Defendant in a police
vehicle
1|9 0n cross examination Officer Somersall testified that when she arrived on the scene, she
did not observe any broken glass She also testified that when she received the dispatch to go to
the scene there was no information about contraband or anything illegal, and she did not
observe
any drugs or anything illegal when she approached the vehicle until she opened the grey
pouch
Officer Somersall had no suspicion of illegal activity and was not in fear for her safety Officer
Somersall observed that Defendant was not covered in blood, not grabbing his chest,
and not
POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U
ST 2023 CR 00156
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAGE 4
behaving as if having a medical incident He was breathing normally and appeared like he was
asleep She did not perform CPR
1[10 Officer Somersall testified she opened the grey pouch to look for identifi
cation and
admitted she did not look in the glove box because the pouch was closer
Until she opened the
pouch, she had no belief or suspicion that the vehicle contained any
contraband or weapons
Defendant did not give Officer Somersall permission to search the pouch
and she did not search
any other part of the vehicle
1|ll When asked about statements Defendant made, Officer Somersall said she did
not give
Defendant his Mzranda rights until he was at the police station, and he decline
d to give a statement
When asked about the statements made by Defendant at the scene, Officer
Somersall indicated that
Defendant was in custody when she asked him about the grey pouch and its’
contents
Ill LEGAL STANDARD
A Motion to suppress physical evidence obtained through warrantiess
seizure
of the defendant
1112 The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Revised Organic
Act of
1954 protect the people of the Virgin Islands from unreasonable searches
and seizures 2 The
Fourth Amendme
seizures of the person 3 A seizure of the person occurs when a reasonable
person, in view of all
’ U S Const amend IV (stating, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be
secure against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized”) see also V [C Rev Org
Act of 1954 § 3 ( The right to be secure
against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated"), see also
People v Armstrong, 64 V I 528, 530 n 1
(V l 2016) (stating that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitut
ion applies to the Virgin Islands)
3 California v Hodart D 499 U S 621 624 (1991) (citing Henry t United
States 36] U S 98 100 (1959)) see
also Blyden v People 53 V I 637 647 (V I 2010) (quoting Brown v
Texas 443 U S 47 50 (1979)) (finding that
“the Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person including
seizures that involve only a brief detention
short of traditional arrest”)
POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U
ST 2023 CR 00156
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAGE 5
the circumstances surrounding the incident, would not feel free to leave 4 The Supreme Coun
approved the exclusion ofevidence as a sanction for violations of the Fourth Amendment in Weeks
v United States,5 and the exclusionary rule was extended to the States in Mapp v Ohio 6 Under
the exclusionary rule, the Court must suppress evidence found to be a product of a Fourth
Amendment violation 7 However, while the Fourth Amendment ensures an individual’s rights
to
be secure from unreasonable search and seizures, it does not require a police officer to ignore
a
possible crime 8 The Fourth Amendment allows officers to conduct limited searches and seizures
upon the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity 9 A warrantless search must be shown to fall
within one of the few narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement "
1113 On a motion to suppress, the burden of proof is ordinarily on the defendant who seeks to
suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment or a statement under the Fifth Amendment '2
However, once it has been established that a search or seizure was conducted without a warrant,
the burden shifts to the government to show that the search or seizure was reasonable '3
Warrantiess searches and seizures are ‘ per se unreasonable absent a few ‘well delineate
d
4 See Hodau D 499 U S at 628 see also United States 1 Dmyton 536 U S 194 201 (2002)
(finding that if a
reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been
seized ’); see also Blyden,
53 V l at 647 (determming that “whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains
his freedom to walk
away, he has seized that person )
5 232 U S 383 (1914)
6 367 U S 643 (1961)
7 See 1d at 648
8 See United States v Chabot 19 V I 28 35 (D V I 1982) (finding that the Fourth Amendmen
t does not require
police officers “simply to shrug their shoulders and allow a crime to occur )
9 See People v Looby 65 VI 84 89 (V 1 Super Ct 2016 (citing Terry v Ohio 392 U S
l 30 (1968)) (allowing a
limited search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause “where a police officer observes unusual
conduct
which leads him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that cnminal activity may be afoot
)
" See Karz 1 Untied States, 389 U S 347 357 (1967) see also G01 :1 Fabian: Ogno, 20 V
I 404 409 (Terr Ct
1984)
'2 People v Prentice 64 V I 79 89 (V I Super Ct 2016) (citing United States 1 Johnson
63 F 3d 242 245 3d Cir
1995
II! 1d»
POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND
2023 VI Super 69U
ST 2023 CR 00156
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAGE 6
exceptions ”"4 The test for “reasonableness” is an objective inquiry analyzed by examini
ng the
totality of the circumstances surrounding the search or seizure '5 If a search or seizure
is found to
be unreasonable, then evidence obtained through such searches and seizures is
excluded in
criminal prosecutions '6
1114 This Court must apply a totality of circumstances’ analysis when deciding whether
probable cause existed '7 Under the test, the totality of the circumstances the whole picture
must be taken into account "8 The inferences of a trained officer may be considered, and
probabilities, not certainty, govern '9
1115 Generally, a warrant is not required for a valid investigatory stop of a vehicle 20 To justify
a warrantless investigatory stop, however, the officer must possess reasonable suspicio
n of
criminal activity based on the totality of the circumstances 2'
116 Another widely recognized warrant exception, the so called “automobile excepti
on” or
“Carroll D00tn'ne,”27 provides that no warrant is necessary to search a car when there
is probable
cause to believe that there is contraband or evidence of a crime in the automobile and exigent
Circumstances etht 7:
'4 People 1 Pemberton 71 VI 251 259 (VI Super Ct 2019) (citing Byownet People
56 V1 207 217 (VI
2012)) (quoting Kat. 389 U S at 357)
'5 Prentice 64 V I at 89 (citing United States 1 Montoya de Hernandez 473 U S 531
537 (1985))
'6 See It! (citing Mappi Ohio 367 U S 643 654 57 (1961))
'7 UnttedSmtesI Cone 449 U S 411 418 (1981)
13 Id at 417
19 [d
20 United States v Arvzzu 534 U S 266 (2002)
211d
’2 Carroll 1 United States 267 U S 132 (1925), and subsequently refined in Chambers v Maroney
399 U S 42
(1970) and Coolidge 1 NH 403 U S 443 458 464 (1971)
23 Wyoming 1 Houghton 526 U S 295 (1999)
O
POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U
ST 2023 CR 00156
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAGE 7
1117 Once a violation of Miranda v Arzzona24 is claimed and Defendant alleges facts
demonstrating that Defendant was in custody and sub] ect to interrogation, the burden shifis to the
People to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the police complied with Miranda and
the statement was voluntary 25 In order to demonstrate that a statement was unlawfully obtained,
the accused must demonstrate that the Defendant provided testimonial information during a
custodial interrogation and that there was no knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the
Defendant s Miranda rights under the totality of the circumstances In this context, the Defendant
is in custody if the Defendant is deprived of freedom in any significant way such that a reasonable
person in the Defendant’s position would not feel free to leave under the totality of the
circumstances An interrogation occurs when the Defendant responds to express questioning or
its functional equivalent words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
IV ANALYSIS
1} 18 Defendant seeks to suppress a Glock 26 with a black ARMA laser TR6 attached to the
trigger guard, a magazine containing fifteen (15) 9mm cartridges; a black conversion kit
modification; a Pearce Grip branded magazine containing fifieen (15) 9mm cartridges, and any
statements made by Defendant at the scene Defendant argues that the physical evidence was
obtained from an illegal search and seizure of his car and any statements made by England, as he
was never advised of his Miranda Rights, are the result of custodial interrogation and should be
suppressed Defendant argues he was unlawfully seized by police who illegally took evidence
from his vehicle and elicited statements from him in violation of his Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
“ 384 U S 436 475 (1979)
5 Colorado v Connelly 479 U S 157 (1986)
POVI v LAQUAN ESSON ENGLAND 2023 VI Super 69U
ST 2023 CR 00156
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAGE 8
Amendment rights The People argue that officers from the Virgin Islands Police Department had
acted in good faith and did not violate Defendant 5 rights
A There were no exigent circumstances to justify the subsequent warrantless
search of the vehicle
1119 Exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless search include (1) the danger that
evidence will be destroyed;26 (2) a threat to the safety of the public or law enforcement officers,27
(3) hot pursuit of a suspect;28 and (4) the danger a suspect will flee before a warrant can be
obtained 29 On the facts before the Court, none of those exigencies presented themselves to justify
the warrantless search of the Defendant 8 vehicle
{[20 Nothing in the record suggests that there was any danger that evidence would be destroyed
The police were clearly not in hot pursuit of anyone, and Defendant did not pose a threat to the
safety of the public or Officer Somersall There was also no evidence that Defendant would flee
before a warrant could be obtained Recognizing that there is no exception, the People attempt to
justify the search as inevitable discovery, but do not put forth any testimony or evidence on how
that would have occurred
1121 Further, the only testimony or evidence before the Court is that Officer Somersall saw a
black firearm in a grey pouch There is no evidence as to what type of firearm, if the fireann
contained ammunition, or if any ammunition was recovered Likewise, there is no evidence before
the Court that 21 Glock 26 with a black ARMA laser TR6 attached to the trigger guard a magazine
2‘ Cupp t Murphy 412 U S 291 294 96 (1973)
g; garden v Hayden 387 U S 204 298 99 (1967)
”Minnesota v Olson 495 U s 91 100(1990) ,
November 17, 2023
for