Taylor v. Clark, No. 7:2018cv00513 - Document 13 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 09/17/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFSCE U.S.DISL GOQIRT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED sEP 1ï 2219 IN TH E UN ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT CO U R T FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W R GINIA ROANOKE DIVJSION RU D O LPH DA W D TA Y LO R , Petitioner, JUL C. UDLEY CLEM BY: D C ivilC ase N o.7:18cv00513 M EM O R AO U M O PIN IO N H A R O LD YV.CL AR K E, R espondent. By:M ichaelF.U rbanski C hiefU nited StatesD istrictJudge Rudolph David Taylor,a Virginia inm ate proceeding with cotmsel,sled apetition fora writof habeas corpuspursuantto 28 U.S.C.j 2254,challenging his2015 TazewellCotmty crim inalconviction. Thism atterisbefore the courton respondent'sm otion to dismiss. After reviewing therecord,the courtconcludesthatrespondent'sm otion mustbegranted. On August14, 2015,afterTaylorentered an Alford1p1ea,the CircuitCourtofTazewell Cotmty entered Iinaljudgment,convicting him ofonecotmtoftransporting a ScheduleIor11 ' .K dnzg and two counts ofpossessing with intentto distdbute a Schedule Ior 11drug. The court sentenced Taylorto atotalofseventy-tiveyearsin prison,with allbutthirteen yearssuspended. In enteling the Alford plea,Taylorreserved the right,under Virginia Code j 19.2-254,to challenge on appealthe trial1 *court's denialof his suppression m otion-z Taylor appealed M s conviçtionsto theCourtofAppealsofVirginia,assigningthefollowing enors: 1. Taylor v. Clark There was insufficient nexus between the intended destination of the parceland theaddressto which itwasdeliveredby 1aw enforcem ent. Doc. 13 1 N orth Carolina v. Alford.400U. S.25 (1970)(authorizing adefendantto waivetrialandto consentto ptmishmentwithoutadmittingparticipationintheactsconstimtingthecrime). 2VirginiaCodej19. 2-254states,inpertinentpart: W ith the approvalofthe courtand the consentofthe Commonwea1th,a defendantmay entera conditionalplea ofguilty in amisdemeanororfelony case in circuitcomt reserving the right,on appeal9om thejudgment,to a review ofthe adverse determination ofany specified pretrial motion.Ifthedefendantprevailson appeal,heshallbeallowedtowithdraw hisplea. Dockets.Justia.com II. The inform ation contained in the affidavitto seclzre the search warrant wastoo staletobeconsidered reliableby am agistrate. 111. The conditionalanticipatory search wan'antfailed to state a triggerinj event which would satisfy the requirem ent that there would be a falr probability thatcontraband would befotmd inside ofTaylor'sresidenceat thetimethesearch wm antwasserved andtheprem isessearched. 1V. The conclusions propotm ded by 1aw enforcement to obtain the search wan' antwere notbased upon the personalknowledge aspresented in the affdavit,butupon statementstaken from an izlformantsome sixty (60) days prior, whose credibility and reliability were tmtested and not supported asrequiredwithin theaffidavit. The CourtofAppeals ofVirginia summ arized the relevantfacts and proceedings in the trialcotu' tasfollow s: On October22,2013,a Custom s and BorderPatrolagentintercepted a package containing 116 grnm s ofmethylone,a substance commonly referred to as GGbath saltsy''ata FedEx facility in Alaska. The package wassentfrom Shijazhatmg, China,and addressed to Gr ave Taylor''at$1106 DialRock Road''in Tazewell, Virginia.The Custom s gnd Border Patrol agent delivered the package to the DepartmentofHomelandSecudtyC:DHS''),andaDHSagentagreedtoattempta controlled delivery ofthepackage in Virginia. The DHS agent t' ravelled to Tazewell and obtained a warrant to search the residence located at 106 Dial Rock Road. This warrant was anticipatory in nature,and only allowed theagentto search thepremisesifan individualaccepted the package tçinto the residence.'' On October28,2013,the agentattempted to deliverthe package while disguised asa FedEx employee. A residentliving at 106 DialRock Road inform ed him thatTaylor did notlive atthataddress and refusedtoacceptthepackage. Thus,thetriggerinjconditionoftheanticipatory w arrantdid notocctlrmld the agentand other asslsting police offkersfrom the Town ofTazewelldid notsearch theresidence. The DHS agent contacted the Tazewell County Sheziffs Ofsce Clsheriffs Office''lthenextda(toirlform them aboutthefaileddelivery.W hentheagent inquired aboutaposslbleinvestigation ofTaylor'sinvolvementin the distribution of narcotics,officers irlformed llim thatthey had been investigating Taylor for eightm onths. In Febnlary of2013,the Sheriffs Oftk ehad received intbrm ation that Taylor was buying bath salts online from a source located in a foreign cotmtry,importing them into the United Statesthrough thegostalsystem,and selling them . Following thisirlitialreport,Taylor's form er glrlfriend,Elizabeth 2 Elswick,wasarrestedforpossessing bath salts.Sheclaim ed thatshehad received thedrugsfrom Taylorand thathe ordered them through them ail. Elswick also provided thepolice with a packaging slip,or Gtwaybill,''concerning one of Taylor's bath salt transactions. The waybill referred to a package addressed to tûRudolph Taylor''at::6555 Pounding M illBranch Road,Potm ding M ill,Virginiay''that had been mailed on August 12,2013. Like the package intercepted by DH S,the package described in the waybillhad been sent 9om Shijazhuang,China. Recordsfrom theDepartmentofM otorVehicles(tCDM V'') confirmedthatTaylorlisted $:6555 Potmding M illBranch Road''asltisaddress. Utilizing the supplem entalinfonuation from the prior investigation of Taylor, Detective Bill Perry of the Sheriffs Office requested a w arrant to search the residence located at6555 Potmding M illBranch Road. In hisaffidavitsupporting llisrequestforthiswarrant,Peny stated: On October 29,2013 an agentofthe Tazewell County Narcotics Task ' Force contacted ...an agentofthe DepartmentofHom eland Security. Thisagentadvised thathe contacted TazewellPoliceDepartm entwith a packagethatcontnined116g' rnmsofM ethyloneGGbathsalts''(which)was intercepted in Anchoragel,qAlaskal,jaddressed to Dave Taylorat106 DialRock Rd.(,1North Tazewelll,jVA. On 10/28/13they attempted a controlled delivery ofthe package butthe package was refused atthis residence. An on-going investigation over the past eightm onths has revealed by thisDetective thatDave Taylorhasreceived on August 12, 2013 apackagef' rom thesnmeaddressfrom Herseig,qChina.M. r.Taylor lives (at)6555 Potmding M illBranch Rd.(,)Pounding M i1lE,qVa. On October 30, 2013, this Task Force will be attem pting a controlled delivery ofthepackageto Taylor'saddresson Potmding Mill(Branch) R d. In anothersection ofthe affidavit,Pen' y stated: Customs has intercepted a package in Anchoragel,q Alaskal,) that contains approxim ately 116 grnm s of M ethylone addressed to Dave Taylorat 106 DialRock Rd(,)North Tazewelll,jVa. M r.Taylorhas received a package from the snm e address in China to his residence at 6555 Potmding M illBr.Rd.(,)Potmding M i11E,qVa. Substance was tested by H om eland Sectu'ity and determ ined to be M ethylone Gtbath salts.'' Inform ation received by this detective has revealed that this substance isbeing ordered and received by U.j.mail,FedEx,and UPS 9om China. W hilePerrycheckedabox ontheaffidavitform indicatingthathehadgersonal knowledge ofthe facts setforth in the affidavit,he provided çça synopsls ofthe investigation''of Taylor wllile testifying tmder oath before the m agistrate who reviewedthewan'antapplication. Based on Peny's afsdavit and testim ony,the reviewing m agistrate issued a warrantallowing the police to search Taylor's residence at6555 Potmding M ill Branch Road for evidence ofdrug distribution. Tlliswarrantwas similarto the priorwan'antauthorizinjasearchoftheresidencelocatedat106DialRockRoad. Although the warrantd1d notrequire the intercepted packageto betaken into the residence,itwasconditioned on Taylor'sacceptanceofthepackage. On October 30,2013,the TazewellCotmty Narcotics Task Force executed the search w arrant at 6555 Polm ding M ill Branch Road. Disgu 'ised as a UPS em ployee,Detective Greg Layne delivered the package addressed to 106 Dial Rock RoadtoTaylorashewasleavinghisresidenceinPotmding Mill. W hile Layne did notpomtoutthe address discrepancy to Taylor,he told him thattçhe was a hard m an to getup with.'' Taylor accepted the package in his driveway apjroximatelysixfeetawayfrom thefrontdooroftheresidence,placeditinthe walstband of his pants,and t'urned to go back into the house. As Taylor was walldng toward the house,Layne signaled forotheroffcerslliding in a nearby deliveryvan to arresthim beforeheentered theresidencewith thepackage. W hen theoflkersexecutedthewarrant,they seizedthepackajecontainingthe bath salts,docllm ents referencing drug transactions,and other ltems potentially linked to thedistribution ofcontrolled substances.Notably,two docllmentsfotmd on thecoffee table ofTaylor's living room contained thetracking nllm berforthe packagethepolicehadjustdelivered. Theofficersalso seized ttvariousitemsof narcoticsparaphem alia''from thehouse,including a setofdigitalscales,two used syringes,and two m etalspoonsanda glasssm oldng pipe containingtheresidueof an Ilnknown substance. After Taylor was charged with numerous dnzg offenses,he fled a m otion to suppressthe evidence the police obtained following the controlled delivery ofthe interceptedjackage. ThecircuitcourtdeniedTaylor'ssuppression motionina detailed opllzion letter. The circuit court concluded that the totality of the circllmstances ofthisparticularcase established a nexusbetween the intercepted package mld Taylor'sresidence in Pounding M ill,explaining thatthe evidence implied that Taylor would have eventually received the package at llis home despite itsintended delivery to DialRock Road. The circuitcourtexplained that the evidence gathered by Peny in hisinvestigation ofTaylorestablished probable cause to believe that Taylor w as engaged in ongoing crim inalactivity and that contraband and evidence of dnlg distribution would be found inside of his residence at 6555 Potm ding M ill Branch R oad when the police executed the w arrant. 4 Tavlorv.Commonwea1th,790 S.E.2d 252,255-57(Va.Sept.13,2016). TheCourtofAppeals of Virginia affrm ed Taylor's convictions and the Suprem e CourtofVirginia denied Taylor's subsequentpetitions for appealreheadng. Taylor filed a petition for m itof certiorad to the Suprem eCourtoftheUnited States,whichthe courtdenied onN ovember27,2017. On October 19, 2018, Taylor, fled his current federal habeas petition, raising the following grotmd forrelief: Yotlrgetitioner'srightsptlrsuanttoArticleIV (sicjandArticleXIV (sicqofthe Constltution oftheUnited Stateswereviolated by theTazewellCotmty N arcotics Task Force (Gçfask Force'')when ittook possession ofapackage placed in the norm alcotlrse of delivery by a third-party and addressed to Dave Taylor at an addressin North Tazewell,Virginia. The Task Force then intentionally diverted the package from its intended destination in North Tazewell,Virginia. Yolzr Petitionerwastargeted by the Task Force and the package containing narcotics wasdelivered by 1aw enforcementto Petitioner,Rudolph David Taylor,atahom e in Potmding M ill,Virginiaby m aking acontrolled narcoticsdelivery to thathom e with no evidence or knowledge of any cozmection between Petitioner and the North Tazew elladdress. TheTask Forcethen executed a Search W an'antofPetitioner'shom e,said Search W arrant having been issued without suffk ientprobable cause as it was based upon a facially incorrectand misleading affidavitsworn to by 1aw erlforcement. Petitioner's M otion to Suppress the evidence and apply the Exclusionary Rule w asdenied by thetrialcourt. II. GllW lherethe Statehasprovided an opportunity forfulland fairlitigation ofaFourth Am endm ent claim ,the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeascop usreliefon the ground thatevidence obtained in an tmconstitutionalsearch orseizure ,,3 ' wasintroduced attrial. Stone v.Powell,428U.S.465,482 (1976). Further,federaldistrict 3 lçBecause the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit texmal som ce of constitm ional protection against...physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of çsubstantivedueprocessy'mustbetheguide. '' Grahnm v.Connor,490U.S.386,395(1989).'Klloelianceon the FourteenthAmendmentasan alternativebasisforhisFourthAmendmentclaimls)doesnotpermitEapetitioner)to avoid the Stone v.Powellrule.'' M ubitav.W enaler,No.1:08-CV-0310-BLW ,2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 142908,at *7,2013WL 5486878,at*3(D.IdahoSept.28,2013). 5 courtsmaynotconsiderç1aclaim thatevidenceadmittedattrialwasthefruitofan illegal(search orseizttreq...on ahabeascopuspetition so longasthestatecourtshad affordedafulland fair opportunityto litigatethatclaim .''Jonesv.SuperintendentofRahwav State Prison,725 F.2d 40, 42 (3rd Cir.1984);seealsoCardwellv.Taylor,461U.S.571,572 (1983);Foltzv.Clarke,No. 3:13CV627,2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 117515,at*9-10,2014 W L 4202482 (E.D.Va.,Aug.22, 2014). W hen faced with allegations presenting Fourth Amendm ent claim s,a federal district courtshould Gfirstinquireasto whetherornotthepetitionerwasafforded an opportuity to raise hisFourth Am endm entclaims tmderthe then existing statepractice.'' Dolem an v.M tmcv,579 F.2d 1258,1265 (4thCir.1978)(capitalization corrected).Thedistrictcourt,however,Kneednot inquire f'urther into the merits''of the case llnless the petitioner<ialleges som ething to indicate thathisopporttmity forfu11and fairlitigation of Ehisclaimqwasin someway impaired.'' 1d. Taylorhasnotargued,nordoestherecord support,' the exijtenceofH y'constrainton Taylor's ability to litigatehisFourth Amendmentclaim in the state cotlrt. Rather,Taylorfbtlly argued his Fourth Am endm entclaim notorlly in the trialcourt,butalso on directappealto the Courtof AppealsofVirginia. In considedng hisappeal, the CourtofAppeals4conc1uded thatprobable cause existed to support the search warrant and that there was a suo cient nexus betw een Taylor and the Pollnding M illaddress: W hile the contraband in the present case m ay or m ay not have been on a tGstlre cotlrse''to Taylor'sresidence in Potmding M ill,the totality ofthe circllm stances 4BecausetheCourtofAppealsdecisionaffirmingTaylor'sconvictionsisthelastreasonedstatecourt opinion,thiscotu'tççlooksthrough''the Supreme CourtofVirgima'srefusalorderto thereasoning ofthe Courtof Appeals. SeeW ilson v.Sellers,138 S.Ct.1188,1193 (2018);seealsoY1stv.Nunnemaker,501U.S.797,803 (1991)(federalhabeascourtsshouldpresumethatC&Ewlheretherehasbeenonereasoned statejudgmentrejectinga federalclaim,latertmexplained ordersupholding thatjudgmentorrejectingthesame claim restuponthesnme ground''l. 6 established a nexusbetween the contraband contained in the intercepted package and Tayloris hom e. The package itself was addressed to çr ave Taylor,''and DM V records established thatççRudolph David Taylor''lived at6555 Polm ding M illBranch Road in Pounding M ill,Virginia. Therefore,the intended recipient listed on the intercepted package directly linked itto the residence in Pounding M ill. Moreimportantly,thewaybillthatElswick providedto thejoliceshowedthat Taylor had received a sim ilar package at llis residence ln Potmding M ill approximately two m onths earlier. Like the intercepted package,the package referencedinthewaybillwassenttoTazewellCotinty9om Shijazhuang,China. Thatpackagewasdelivered to 6555 Potmding M illBranch Road,and acceptedby an individualwho si> ed asEGR.Taylor.'' Taylorwasalso linkedto the contentsoftheinterceptedpackage.Theintercepted ?ackage contained bath salts,and police from the,sheriff'sOffce had been lnvestigating Taylor for his involvement in the distribution of bath salts in the area foreightm onths. W hen Elswick wasarrested forpossessing bath salts,she told the police thatshe had received them from Taylor. She also told the police that Taylor ordered the bath salts online and received them in the mail. The waybillgrovided by Elswick suggested thatTaylorreceived bath saltsf' rom a supplierln a foreign country. These circlzmstancesprovided suftk ientprobable causeto supportthe issuance of an anticipatory search warrant. The intercepted package was linked to Taylor's residence in Potmding M illby both its contents and Taylor's pastactions. The nexus established between the package and Taylor's residence satissed both conditionsrequired by (United Statesv.Gnzbbs,547U.S.90 (2006)q. Based on Taylor'salleged invùlvementin the distdbution ofbath saltsand hispriorreceipt of a sim ilar package at his residence,the m agistrate issuing the anticipatory warrant could reasonably conclude that Taylor would accept the intercepted ?ackagewhenitwasdeliveredbythepoliceandthatcontrabandwouldbefotmd lnsideofhishom ewhen the search wan' antwasexecuted. Taylor,790 SrE.2d at260-61. The CourtofAppe>ls ofVirginia fully addressed each ofTaylor's Fourth Am endm ent argtlmentsand issued areasoned decision on themedts,denying them. JZ at258-64. Thus, V irgirlia courts provided Taylor a full and fair opporttm ity to litigate his Fourth Am endm ent claim,so hemay notrelitigate ithere. See Doleman,579 F.2d at1265 (affirming thatStone barred petitioner'sclaim where he çihad an opportlmity to presentllisFourth Amendm entclaim s by a motion to suppress both atthe trial courtleveland thereafter to assign as an error,an adverserulingthereon,on appeal');Kirmard v.Kelly,No.1:09cv1116,2010 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 41123,at*10,2010 W L 1704781,at*3 (E.D.Va.Apr.26,2010)(finding thatthe state had provided a fulland fairopportunity to litigate where petitioner ttunsuccessfully challenged the denialofhismotion to suppresson directappeal'). Asthe Fourth CircuitCourtofAppeals noted in Grimslev v.Dodson,696 F.2d 303,305 (4th Cir.1982),Gistone ...marked,formost pyacticalpurposes,theend offederalcourtreconsideration ofFourth Amendmentclaim sby *ay ofhabeascop uspetitionswherethepetitionerhad an opportlmityto litigatethoseclaim sin state court.''Assuch,StoneprecludesTaylorfrom obtaining federalhabeasreliefon hisclaim .5 IV . Based on the foregoing' ,the courtconcludes that Taylor has not shown that he is in custody in'violation ofthe Constimtion orlawsortreatiesoftheUnited States,see j 22544a), and,therefore,thecourtwillgrantrespondent'sm otion to dismiss. ENTER: This17th day ofSeptember,2019. /w/ 'z'ë& ChiefUnited .; s Distrid Judge 5n iscaseisnotsubjecttothelimitationplacedonStonebytheholdinginKhnmelmanv.Morrison,477U.S.365, 380(1986),forçtsixthAmendmensclaimsbaseduponineffectiveassistmweofcounselbasedprincipallyondefense cotmsel'shwompetenthandlingofFom' th Amendmentissues.''Thereisno Sixth Amendmentclaim in thiscase. 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
