USA v. Newman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CR-25-113-RAW
)
RAMONE ANTUANE NEWMAN, )
)
)
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
This matter came on for pretrial conference on February 3, 2026.
Defense counsel brought to the court’s attention that a previous order
(#64) affirmed the Report and Recommendation (#47) of the United
States Magistrate Judge, but only took account of the government’s partial
objection and not the defendant’s objection (#50). The court will treat the
statement as an oral motion to reconsider and revisits the Report and
Recommendation.
Under Rule 59(b)(1) F.R.Cr.P., the district court may refer
suppression motions to a Magistrate Judge for a recommended disposition.
In considering an objection, the district court must conduct de novo review
and “may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation, receive further
evidence, or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 84 Filed in ED/OK on 02/05/26 Page 1 of 7

instructions.” Rule 59(b)(3). The undersigned has reviewed the available
record. The factual background is set forth in the Report and
Recommendation.
Defendant’s arrest unfolded by way of a high-speed chase (after
defendant had been stopped for speeding) during which law enforcement
saw an object thrown from the defendant’s vehicle. After defendant was
apprehended, law enforcement returned to that spot and found a firearm
and ammunition. Defendant is charged in this court with a single count
of felon in possession of firearm and ammunition.
Defendant’s first objection is to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that
probable cause supported the warrantless search of the vehicle driven by
defendant.1 After rejecting several proposed justifications offered by the
government, the Magistrate Judge nevertheless concluded: “Considering
both the extreme nature of the high-speed chase and the law enforcement
officer’s observation that the Defendant threw an item from the vehicle,
officers certainly had probable cause to search the Defendant’s vehicle.”
(#47 at 5). The defendant’s “egregious eluding,” combined with the
throwing of an object from the vehicle, established probable cause under
1The testimony is that the search found a box of ammunition in the vehicle, although the government
cannot produce the box of ammunition.
2
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 84 Filed in ED/OK on 02/05/26 Page 2 of 7

the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant
requirement. Id.
The defendant’s objection (and the Report and Recommendation
itself) demonstrate that this is a close call. Testimony indicated that
defendant’s “vehicle went through a highly congested intersection . . . at
over 100 miles-an-hour.” (#59 at 34-35). Also, that at other times the
defendant’s vehicle was going “at least” 120 to 125 miles an hour. Id. at
37 ll.12-21. It was a “very dangerous pursuit in regards to the safety of
others on the roadway and highway.” Id. at 42 ll.1-2.
The Tenth Circuit notes that flight from police can be considered,
among other factors, in probable cause analysis. See United States v.
Cruz, 977 F.3d 998, 1005 (10th Cir.2020)(citing United States v. Polly, 630
F.3d 991, 999 (10th Cir.2011)). In an unpublished decision, the court said
“[u]nlike the district court, we do not regard Mr. Brook’s flight from arrest
as contributing significantly to probable cause to search the U-Haul. . . .
But his flight at least added to the probable cause factors discussed above,
which were sufficient to justify the automobile-exception search of the U-
Haul.” United States v. Brook, 806 Fed.Appx. 649, 653 (10th Cir.2020).
Probable cause to search a vehicle exists if, under the totality of
circumstances, a fair probability exists that the vehicle contains
3
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 84 Filed in ED/OK on 02/05/26 Page 3 of 7

contraband or other evidence. United States v. Pickel, 863 F.3d 1240,
1248 (10th Cir.2017). It exists “where the known facts and circumstances
are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” Ornelas v. United
States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (2017). The undersigned finds appropriate the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the nature of the defendant’s flight,
coupled with discarding an unknown object out of the vehicle window
during such flight, is sufficient in this case.2
Defendant’s next objection is to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that
the public safety exception excused the officer’s failure to Mirandize him.
Again, the issue is a close one. After defendant was arrested, “he told
Sergeant Orr that there was marijuana in the vehicle.” (#59 at 44 ll.14-
15). Defendant was asked “if there was a gun in the vehicle” and he
answered no. (Id. at 44 ll.24-25). He was then asked “what’s the ammo
for” and did not respond intelligibly. (Id. at 45 ll.2-8).3 Law enforcement
2See also United States v. Shackleford, 830 F.3d 751, 753 n.2 (8th Cir.2016)(holding that “[t]he
automobile exception requires probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of any crime will be found
in the vehicle, not merely reason to believe evidence of the crime of arrest will be found.”).
3The undersigned has reviewed what has been listed as a clip from Officer Graham’s body camera
(#75) and finds the questions and answers inaudible.
4
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 84 Filed in ED/OK on 02/05/26 Page 4 of 7

recovered “a black bag of medical marijuana” from the vehicle. (Id. at 45
ll. 9-10).
The Magistrate Judge concluded that “[t]he circumstances
surrounding Defendant’s arrest satisfy both elements of the public safety
exception.” (#47 at 6). Under that exception, an officer may question a
suspect in custody without first giving the Miranda warnings if the
questions arise out of “an objectively reasonable need to protect the police
or the public from any immediate danger associated with a weapon”.
United States v. DeJear, 552 F.3d 1196, 1201 (10th Cir.2009)(quoting New
York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 659 n.8 (1984)). The Tenth Circuit
adopted the following formulation: under the public safety exception, for
an officer to have a reasonable belief that he [or the public] is in danger,
at minimum, he must have a reason to believe (1) that the defendant
might have (or recently have had) a weapon, and (2) that someone other
than police might gain access to that weapon and inflict harm with it.
DeJear, 552 F.3d at 1201 (quoting United States v. Williams, 483 F.3d
425, 428 (6th Cir.2007)).
The undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge that both
elements are present here, but disagrees on the application. The presence
of the two factors permitted questions – but only about the firearm that
5
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 84 Filed in ED/OK on 02/05/26 Page 5 of 7

was thrown out of the vehicle. Quarles recognized a “narrow exception to
the Miranda rule” when dealing with a “volatile situation.” Quarles, 467
U.S. at 658. Such a situation allows questions “reasonably prompted by
a concern for the public safety.” Quarles, 467 U.S. at 656. The questions
must be necessary to secure law enforcement’s own safety or the safety
of the public and not “designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from
a suspect.” Id. at 659.
Here, there was no imminent threat regarding whatever was
contained in the automobile. The vehicle was secured and defendant was
handcuffed without access. At the time, law enforcement merely knew
that an “object” had been thrown from the vehicle. An inquiry as to the
object’s nature would have been permissible. The questions instead
involved the defendant’s vehicle. Without Miranda warnings, any answers
must be excluded.
It is the order of the court that, upon reconsideration, the motion of
the defendant to suppress (#24) is denied as to the search of the
vehicle but is granted as to defendant’s post-arrest statements.
6
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 84 Filed in ED/OK on 02/05/26 Page 6 of 7

ORDERED THIS 5th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
______________________________________
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 84 Filed in ED/OK on 02/05/26 Page 7 of 7