Memorandum and Order — No. 4:22-cr-00217 (Dkt. 134, E.D. Mo.)

Summary

A Memorandum and Order, Doc. #: 134, filed February 18, 2025 in United States v. Jeffery Alexander, Case No. 4:22 CR 217 RWS (Case: 4:22-cr-00217-RWS), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, signed by United States District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. The court reviews Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins' Report and Recommendation dated October 8, 2024 on the defendant's motion to suppress evidence and motion to dismiss Count III, which charges being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It sustains the objection as to one sentence of the report, adopts the report otherwise, overrules the other objections and denies both motions.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

 Case: 4:22-cr-00217-RWS       Doc. #: 134 Filed: 02/18/25   Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
                                         493



                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                 )
                                          )
             Plaintiff,                   )
                                          )
      v.                                  )   Case No. 4:22 CR 217 RWS
                                          )
JEFFERY ALEXANDER,                        )
                                          )
             Defendant.                   )

                           MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

      On April 13, 2022, officers the Florissant Police Department responded to

bank robbery. Utilizing information from a third party aiding the investigation, the

officers tracked the stolen money with a GPS device placed in the bag of money

taken by the suspect. The GPS device led the officers to the area of Chicory Creek

and Borden Drive, where they observed a bag of money and a firearm in Defendant

Jeffery Alexander’s vehicle.      The officers noted that Alexander matched the

description of the bank robbery suspect. The officers then detained Alexander and

obtained a search warrant to further search his vehicle.

      On April 20, 2022, Alexander was charged in a three-count indictment with

robbery of a federally insured institution, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), possessing and

brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. §

924(c)(1)(A), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
 Case: 4:22-cr-00217-RWS      Doc. #: 134 Filed: 02/18/25      Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
                                        494



      On December 19, 2023, Alexander filed a motion to suppress evidence.

Alexander argues that the money and firearm seized by the police should be

suppressed because the officers lacked probable cause to search his vehicle and

because the search warrant was based on an insufficient affidavit.

      On December 19, 2023, Alexander further filed a motion to dismiss Count III

of the indictment. Alexander argues that the § 922(g)(1) charge violates his Second

Amendment rights.

      On March 8, 2024, a United States Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary

hearing on Alexander’s motion to suppress. Alexander and the United States filed

post-hearing briefs after the evidentiary hearing. The Magistrate Judge held a

supplemental hearing on July 18, 2024. On October 8, 2024, the Magistrate Judge

filed a report and recommendation that Alexander’s motion to suppress and motion

to dismiss should be denied. Alexander filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

report and recommendation on November 5, 2024. The United States filed a

response to Alexander’s objections on December 10, 2024.

      I have performed a de novo review of Alexander’s motion, including

reviewing the parties’ initial briefs, the hearing transcript, the post-hearing briefs,

and the objection and response briefs. Alexander does not contest the Magistrate

Judge’s findings with respect to the seizure of his person, and while he preserves for

the record his objections to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, he does not contest


                                          2
 Case: 4:22-cr-00217-RWS      Doc. #: 134 Filed: 02/18/25       Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
                                        495



that the ruling is in accord with binding precedent from the Eighth Circuit Court of

Appeals. However, he challenges the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings with

respect to the search of his vehicle and the subsequent search warrant, claiming that

the Magistrate Judge erred in her credibility assessment of Detective Chandler.

      After careful review, I agree with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that

Alexander’s motions should be denied for the reasons stated in her report. The

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the search of the vehicle was valid, and to

the extent that this conclusion is reliant upon the testimony of Detective Chandler,

the Court agrees with and upholds the Magistrate Judge’s credibility determinations.

I also agree with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the search warrant included

sufficient indicia of probable cause to support its issuance.

      However, I will sustain the objection with respect to the following sentence

on page 3 of the Report and Recommendation: “Upon arriving at the bank,

[Detective Chandler] and other police officers interviewed possible witnesses.” ECF

113 at 3. As Alexander correctly notes, Detective Chandler testified that he never

actually made it to the bank because he was rerouted by the dispatcher to follow the

money’s GPS coordinates. ECF 93 at 32. However, this minor misstatement is not

material to any of the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge, as even

Alexander acknowledges that it was not the “focal point” of the analysis. ECF 118

at 8. This is particularly true since the search warrant, which was applied for by


                                          3
 Case: 4:22-cr-00217-RWS      Doc. #: 134 Filed: 02/18/25     Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
                                        496



Florissant Police Det. Jeffrey Spalding (not Detective Chandler), was in fact

supplemented with witness statements collected by the police officers who were

actually at the bank.

      Accordingly,

      IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that I adopt and incorporate Magistrate Judge

Noelle C. Collins’ Report and Recommendation dated October 8, 2024 [113], and

defendant’s objections to the Report and Recommendation [118] are overruled,

except as to the following extent: the sentence “Upon arriving at the bank, [Detective

Chandler] and other police officers interviewed possible witnesses,” appearing on

page 3 of the Report and Recommendation, is not adopted and incorporated. In all

other respects, defendant’s objections are overruled and the Report and

Recommendation is otherwise adopted and incorporated.

      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jeffery Alexander’s motion to

dismiss Count III [73] and motion to suppress evidence [74] are DENIED.




                                              ______________________________
                                              RODNEY W. SIPPEL
                                              UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 18th day of February 2025.




                                          4


File and source

File

134.pdf

Size

180,322 bytes

SHA-256

9b20f09157c9dabe833627ec9ac99c246651083cd92bce7f88e2d3ddccb7aa99

Our copy

134.pdf

Original

No public link identified.