United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southwestern Division
ORDER AND OPINION (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS
PHILLIPS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
December 8, 2015, Defendant Andrew J. Sisco was indicted for
being a felon in possession of a firearm, receiving an
unregistered automatic machine gun, and possessing an
unregistered silencer. (Doc. 1.)
filed motions to suppress evidence seized as a result of two
search warrants issued on August 26, 2015, following
Defendant's arrest on an Arkansas warrant. (Docs. 28,
29.) The first warrant was issued for three storage units at
Neosho RV Boat and Mini Storage. (Doc. 30-1.) The second
warrant authorized a search of Defendant's residence and
was obtained after the execution of the search of the storage
units. (Doc. 31-2.) Defendant's motions allege that the
applications and supporting affidavits “wholly lack
probable cause and any nexus to the places designated to be
searched, thus violating Mr. Sisco's Fourth Amendment
right against unreasonable search and seizure.” (Doc.
28, p. 1, Doc. 29 p. 1.)
also filed a Motion to Suppress Custodial Statement. (Doc.
30.) Defendant argues that his verbal and written statements
should be excluded from evidence at trial as they were the
product of an unconstitutional search and seizure of
Defendant in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Defendant also contends that the statements were
not voluntary and were obtained in violation of
defendant's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Honorable David P. Rush, Magistrate Judge for this District,
held a hearing on September 7, 2016, and he issued two
Reports and Recommendations (“the Reports”) on
January 11, 2017 recommending that the Motions to Suppress be
denied. (Docs. 46, 47.) Defendant has objected to the
Reports. (Docs. 50, 51.) The Government has not responded to
Defendant's objection, and the time for doing so has
passed. Local Rule 74.1(b)(2).
Court has conducted a de novo review as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). In particular, the Court has reviewed the
parties' submissions before the hearing, the transcript
from the hearing, and the exhibits admitted during the
hearing. Having conducted this review, the Court adopts the
Reports in their entirety as the Orders of the Court and
denies the Motions to Suppress. Given the Reports'
thoroughness there is no need for extended discussion.
David Mace was on patrol by himself between 1:00 and 2:00
a.m. on August 26, 2015. (Doc. 42, pp. 4, 33.) At
approximately 1:25 a.m. while driving north on Highway 59, he
saw a vehicle parked outside a storage lot with its
headlights on. (Doc. 42, pp. 4, 8.) Deputy Mace turned around
at the next intersection and drove back to the vehicle. (Doc.
42, p. 5.) When he returned, the vehicle's headlights
were off, which was significant to the deputy as it occurred
to him that the individuals there had seen him drive by and
they turned their headlights off to possibly conceal
themselves. (Doc. 42, p. 34.) Deputy Mace observed a female,
who identified herself as Angela Sisco, near the vehicle
going through what looked like rummage sale items or items
that had come from a storage locker. (Doc. 42, pp. 5, 10.)
Deputy Mace stopped to talk to her and she consented to a
search of her vehicle. (Doc. 42, pp. 5, 7.)
Deputy Mace was searching the vehicle, he noticed a man,
later identified as Defendant Andrew Sisco, approaching from
the inside of the fenced area around the storage sheds. (Doc.
42, p. 7.) Ms. Sisco said that the individual was her son.
(Doc. 42, p. 8.) Deputy Mace approached the chain link fence
and asked Defendant to identify himself. (Doc. 42, p. 9.)
Defendant did not comply with his request. (Doc. 42, p. 9.)
The deputy asked him to identify himself several times. (Doc.
42, p. 33.) When Deputy Mace asked Defendant why he was there
at this time of the morning, Defendant stated that it was a
twenty-four hour access facility and Defendant has a storage
shed. (Doc. 42, pp. 10, 28.) Deputy Mace testified that he
felt it was important to identify Defendant because it
appeared to him that a burglary or some other crime was being
committed. (Doc. 42, p. 10.)
Mace asked Defendant for the key pad access code to the gate,
but Defendant would not provide it. (Doc. 42, pp. 11, 25.)
The deputy was able to push the gate open just wide enough so
that he could fit through. (Doc. 42, p. 11.) Deputy Mace
testified that an individual could have pushed their way into
the facility, as he did, without actually opening the gate.
(Doc. 42, p. 11.) After pushing open the gate and going
inside, Deputy Mace put Defendant in handcuffs. (Doc. 42, p.
13.) The deputy frisked him for weapons and then removed his
wallet from his back pocket in order to identify him. (Doc.
42, p. 13.) Deputy Mace located an ID in the wallet that
matched Defendant. (Doc. 42, p. 14.) He ran that ID through
dispatch for warrants and also used that information to
contact the business to see if Defendant had a storage unit.
(Doc. 42, p. 14.) After running the information through
dispatch, it returned with felony warrants out of Benton
County, Arkansas. (Doc. 42, p. 15.) Defendant was placed
under arrest as a result of the Arkansas warrants. (Doc. 42,
Defendant was arrested, officers sought a search warrant for
his storage units. The affidavit, (Doc. 28-1, pp. 3-4),
begins by stating that Defendant was arrested on August 26,
2015 at a storage unit facility at which Defendant had three
storage units. The affidavit also details two previous
arrests of Defendant. At the first arrest on August 9, 2014,
an inventory search revealed ten grams of methamphetamine, a
gun, and keys to storage units. At the second arrest on
January 22, 2015, Defendant had some pills, a glass pipe for
smoking methamphetamine, an unidentified number of empty
baggies, and a leafy substance believed to be marijuana.
Defendant was also a suspect in an “ongoing
investigation of moving large amounts of Methamphetamine from
Wichita Kansas to Neosho Missouri” and had been tracked
going back and forth between Wichita and Neosho. The warrant
also states that “[w]e have several sources of
information stating that [Defendant] goes to Kansas and
brings back large amounts of methamphetamine and stores it at
the storage units.” Finally, the warrant states that a
source indicated that Defendant received a money order in
June 2015 for an unspecified amount from David Mitchell, who
was arrested on August 18, 2015 after a search of his vehicle
revealed 15.9 grams of methamphetamine. Mitchell was charged
with drug trafficking. Mitchell was arrested at the same
storage facility as Defendant and also had storage units
officers received a search warrant for Defendant's
storage units and searched them, officers applied for a
warrant to search Defendant's residence. The affidavit in
support of the search warrant for Defendant's residence
contained the same information in the affidavit for the
search of the storage units and added the following
On August 26, 2015, deputies served a search warrant on three
storage units that are being rented to Andrew Sisco and
located three stolen motorized vehicles, packaging that
appears to be for a large quantity of narcotics, and several
items of drug paraphernalia. (Doc. 29-1, p. 3.)
I offer the opinion that the above listed residence has been
used for furtherance of ...