Page 42 - SEPT OCTOBER 2019_PJ - Final_Neat

officer then had Glenn get out and go to the rear of unauthorized access devices (i.e., social security
the car. There, Dawsey pointed to the license numbers). It also charged them with access device
plate, which was obscured with a tinted plastic fraud and aggravated identity theft.
cover and said the cover was the violation that
In 2016, all three filed suppression motions
caused the stop. Dawsey, who had two decades of
challenging the legality of the stop and the search
experience with the sheriff’s office at the time,
of the entire vehicle. The district court denied
later explained at a hearing that motorists often
Glenn’s and James’ motions and partially denied
use such license plate covers to evade
Walker’s, holding: the stop was lawful; the officer
identification by traffic cameras. Glenn stated the
had reasonable suspicion for extending the stop;
cover was affixed to the license plate at the time of
and, Glenn and James lacked standing to challenge
the rental and repeatedly offered to remove it.
the search of the vehicle. In partially granting
At the back of the car, Glenn explained that Walker’s motion, the court ruled his consent to the
Walker had rented the vehicle. After questioning search was not voluntary. The Government
Glenn, Dawsey spoke with Walker and got the appealed. We affirmed the district court’s partial
rental agreement, then returned to Glenn at the grant of Walker’s motion to suppress, and the
rear of the car for further questioning. Dawsey Government dismissed his charges. See United
then told Glenn to stay behind the rental car while States v. Walker, 706 F. App’x 152, 154-56 (5th
Dawsey returned to his cruiser to verify some of Cir. 2017).
the information he had just received. By this point,
James and Glenn’s cases were held in abeyance
about six and half minutes had passed since Glenn
during the pendency of the interlocutory appeal
drove the vehicle onto the shoulder of the
concerning Walker. Following our opinion in
interstate and stopped.
Walker, Glenn and James filed a second joint
When Dawsey returned to his cruiser, he did not in suppression motion primarily regarding their
fact input the information; instead he called for personal items found in bags and luggage within
assistance. Several minutes later, Dawsey returned the car. The district court again refused to suppress
to question Glenn further, eventually asking if he any evidence as to Glenn, concluding Glenn gave
could search the car. Glenn responded, “Yeah. You valid consent to the search. The court granted
can search it.” Dawsey told Walker that Glenn had James’ motion to suppress items found in his
consented to a search, to which Walker replied, personal bag, and James later pled guilty to all
“he said you can search it, search it.” Walker and counts. Only Glenn went to trial where the jury
James stepped to the rear of the car, and Dawsey found him guilty of all charges. The district court
and other officers searched the car. They found, sentenced him to 120 months in prison.
among other things, over 100 blank ID cards,
On appeal, Glenn challenges the district court’s
dozens of blank checks, holographic overlays, a
denials of his motions to suppress and several
printer, envelopes with names and social security
sentencing decisions.
numbers, computer equipment, and $95,000.
As he did in district court, on appeal Glenn
The subsequent investigation revealed that Glenn,
contends all the evidence seized from the rental
Walker, and James were involved in a multi-state
vehicle should have been suppressed. He does
counterfeit check scheme and had been in Texas to
not renew as an independent argument his specific
cash counterfeit checks. The Government charged
challenge to the search of his personal bag in the
them with conspiracy to make and pass counterfeit
trunk. Three envelopes of cash were found in that
checks, produce fraudulent IDs, and use
bag. His primary appellate argument is that

38 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal