S.D.Miss.: Plain view of alleged drug residue was apparently false and a “comedy of errors”

Plastic wrappers or containers in cars are ubiquitous. The officer [almost obviously] made up a claim there was drug residue in a wrapper. First it was ecstacy, then it was cocaine. It’s all on bodycam. This was a “comedy of errors.” Suppressed. United States v. Abdur-Rashied, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198893 (S.D.Miss. Oct. 15, 2021):

A review of the dash camera footage further weakens the Government’s argument. Over the course of his exchange with Mr. Abdur-Rashied, Detective Hartfield at first expressed conviction that the alleged residue on the piece of plastic was ecstasy. Then he said it was cocaine. This, despite Mr. Abdur-Rashied’s representation that the loose pill the Detective spotted near the piece of plastic was a vitamin. Detective Hartfield did not test the loose vitamin found in the car, nor the alleged residue, as the City of Richland’s narcotics unit keeps its field kits in the office, not in the field.

To quote Detective Hartfield, probable cause, like a baggie, does not just “fall out of the sky.” An officer cannot conjure evidence of narcotics transport or use simply by listing illegal substances. Repeatedly asking a driver whether his vehicle contains cocaine does not transform an ordinary piece of plastic into a conveyor of drugs. Sometimes, probable cause is simply absent. That was the case here.

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are not absolute. Yet they surely protect against the comedy of errors presented in this record. Officers are not permitted to manufacture probable cause. Since Detective Hartfield lacked probable cause to search the car, this Court will apply the exclusionary rule, which “prohibits the introduction at trial of all evidence that is derivative of an illegal search, or evidence known as the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.'” United States v. Hernandez, 670 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Singh, 261 F.3d 530, 535 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted)). Accordingly, this Court will exclude the fruit of this unconstitutional search, including the gun.

. . .

To quote Detective Hartfield, probable cause, like a baggie, does not just “fall out of the sky.” An officer cannot conjure evidence of narcotics transport or use simply by listing illegal substances. Repeatedly asking a driver whether his vehicle contains cocaine does not transform an ordinary piece of plastic into a conveyor of drugs. Sometimes, probable cause is simply absent. That was the case here.

If the officer was lying, then calling it a “comedy of errors” is too kind. Of course, our local sheriff’s office 35 years ago mistook tomato plants for marijuana plants. That was fun.