United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
pending before the Court is Defendant Jemayl Pearson,
Jr.' s Motion to Suppress. [Filing No. 29.] Mr.
Pearson has been charged with being a felon in possession of
a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),
[Filing No. 1], and is awaiting trial in this
matter, [Filing No. 34]. He seeks to suppress: (1)
evidence recovered after what he contends was an illegal
search and seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment
rights, and (2) admissions and statements he made during an
interrogation. For the reasons detailed herein, Mr.
Pearson's Motion is DENIED because the
Court concludes there have been no constitutional violations.
June 12, 2018, Mr. Pearson signed a contract (the
“Contract”) with Marion County Community
Corrections, (“MCCC”) in order to
participate in an electronic monitoring program. [Filing
No. 29-1 at 1-4.] The Contract provided, in relevant
part, as follows:
You waive your right against search and seizure, and shall
permit MCCC staff, or any law enforcement officer acting on a
MCCC's behalf, to search your person, residence, motor
vehicle, or any location where your personal property may be
found, to insure compliance with the requirements of
You must not use, purchase or possess weapons, firearms, or
ammunition. Any weapons, firearms, or ammunition found in the
residence where you reside will be confiscated and will
result in the immediate filing of a Notice of Violation with
the Court. There are to be no weapons in the residence
regardless if any residents have a valid weapon permit.
[Filing No. 29-1 at 1.]
of the intake process, Mr. Pearson was required to watch a
video of an MCCC employee reading the Contract out loud.
[Filing No. 29-2 at 1.] The wording of the Contract
varied slightly from the words read in the intake video,
which stated as follows:
You must permit MCC (sic) staff and/or law enforcement to
enter the residence in which you are residing and to conduct
a search of the residence at any time with no prior notice.
You must permit a search of your person or property by MCCC
staff and/or law enforcement based on a reasonable suspicion
that a violation of any part of this Contract has occurred.
[Filing No. 36, Ex. 6 at 2:01-2:24.]
June and early July 2018, Mr. Pearson's MCCC case
manager, Doug Langille, gave Mr. Pearson two verbal warnings
after evidence showed that Mr. Pearson had traveled to an
unauthorized location. [Filing No. 35-1 at 2-3.] On
July 10, 2018, MCCC law enforcement liaison Jill Jones
requested a compliance check of Mr. Pearson's residence
with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
(“IMPD”), which occurred nine days
later. [Filing No. 35-1 at 3.]
Jones conducted the compliance check of Mr. Pearson's
residence with IMPD Sergeant Richard Stratman, and Officers
Christopher Chapman, Scott Nickels, and Jesus Soria.
[Filing No. 29-2 at 1.] During the compliance check,
Officer Soria looked underneath the couch and found a pair of
sweatpants wrapped around a rifle. [Filing No. 29-2 at
2.] Officer Soria then placed Mr. Pearson in handcuffs
and Officer Nickels began recording statements from Mr.
Pearson, his mother Lakenya Pearson, and another individual
who was present at the scene. [Filing No. 29-2
at 2.] Officer Nickels read Mr. Pearson his
Miranda rights and then began questioning him.
[Filing No. 29-2 at 2; Filing No. 35-4 at
response to Officer Nickels' questions, Mr. Pearson
initially stated that he did not know anything about the
rifle under the couch and that it probably belonged to his
mother's boyfriend. [Filing No. 35-4 at 2.]
Officer Nickels then questioned Ms. Pearson, who stated that
the rifle was not hers, that she did not have a boyfriend,
and that the only other resident at the address was her son.
[Filing No. 35-4 at 4.] Ms. Pearson eventually
revealed that she had been convicted of a felony twelve years
ago. [Filing No. 35-4 at 7.] Officer Nickels then
said to Mr. Pearson
So, the truth is, even if it's 12 years, mom is still in
the same situation you are. . . . She's considered a
felon too. You know what you're saying there? So someone,
you or anybody else, brings a gun into her house, she could
potentially be charged with that. You understand that, right?
. . . . It doesn't matter if it's been 12 years or 30
years. Do you want to rethink what you're telling me? Are
you doing the right thing? . . . Jamayl, do you want to
rethink what you're telling me and do the right thing?
[Filing No. 35-4 at 7.] The questioning continued as
follows (with “SN” being Officer
Nickels, “JP” being Mr. Pearson, and
“LP” being Ms. Pearson):
SN: I'm just, just so we're clear though, you
understand the position you're putting your mother in,
right? You understand that?
JP: How am I putting her in a position?
LP: Because I'm going to go to fucking jail?
SN: She's a serious. She's a serious violent felon j
ust like you are, LP: And lose everything I got going on.
SN: She's a serious violent felon just like you are with
a dealing case conviction. That qualifies her as a serious
violent felon, Any firearm in her residence, she could
potentially go to prison for. You're okay with that?
JP: Nah, I ain't.
SN: So do you want to talk me about this or no? Do you want
to tell me ...