USA v. Rocklage-Dompierre

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID ROCKLAGE-DOMPIERRE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:22-cr-00070-MTS/NCC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the entire record and will overrule Defendant
David Rocklage-Dompierre’s objections, incorporate and adopt United States Magistrate Judge
Noelle C. Collins’ report and recommendation, and deny Defendant’s motion to suppress.
I. Background
On February 9, 2022, a grand jury indicted Defendant on three counts: 1) possession with
the intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); 2) possession
of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and 3)
one count of felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Defendant has
filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, Doc. [66], wherein he argues that the Court should suppress
all evidence seized in connection with his arrest. The Court referred Defendant’s Motion to United
States Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On August 6, 2025, Judge
Collins held an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Defendant and the Government subsequently
filed post-hearing briefs. After taking the matters under submission, Judge Collins issued a Report
and Recommendation recommending denial of the Motion. Doc. [103]. Defendant filed Objections
Case: 4:22-cr-00070-MTS Doc. #: 122 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
to Judge Collins’ Report and Recommendation, Doc. [106], and a Response was filed by the
Government, Doc. [110]. The matter is now ripe for ruling.
II. Standard
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district judge
must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report, findings, or recommendations to which
the party objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.”); United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommendation, receive further evidence, or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.”).
III. Findings of Fact
Defendant has no objection to the Findings of Fact included in the Report and
Recommendation. Upon review, the Court modifies, adopts, and incorporates Judge Collins’
factual findings with its own.1
Defendant fled from police officers, Gregston and Dedakovic, when they initiated a valid
traffic stop after noticing that the green, spray-painted motorcycle2 Defendant was riding did not
have license plates. He fled from the police officers at a high rate of speed, driving down the center
lane of the street at times, thus committing traffic violations. The officers disengaged rather than
1 This includes a modification as to the sequence of events leading up to and the removal of Defendant’s backpack.
2 Officer Gregston testified that they observe a lot of stolen motorcycles in the area they were patrolling and that stolen
motorcycles are often spray-painted and have no license plates. Doc. [91] at 17.
Case: 4:22-cr-00070-MTS Doc. #: 122 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
continue a risky pursuit, but they continued to travel the route taken by Defendant. A few minutes
after the initial pursuit, they heard from police dispatch that the motorcycle had crashed, side-
swiping another vehicle in the process. When police officers Gregston and Dedakovic arrived at
the scene, they approached Defendant to check on him and to place him under arrest for felony
fleeing. They saw Defendant’s green motorcycle on its side in the street. Defendant was wearing
a backpack, appeared injured, and was seated on the ground “blading” or leaning his body to the
right toward the ground. At that time, police officers Harris and Blackmon arrived on scene.
As the police officers were trying to set Defendant upright on the ground, Defendant was
twisting and continued blading to his right. As this was happening, Officer Blackmon noticed a
firearm tucked into Defendant’s waistband on the right side and called out to the other officers that
Defendant had a firearm. Doc. [91] at 25-26; (See Gov’t Exh. 4 at 1:46). When the police officers
attempted to retrieve it, Defendant resisted and would not let go of the gun. Officers can be heard
telling Defendant to “let the gun go” multiple times. Doc. [91] at 46; (See Gov’t Exh. 5 at 2:16).
At this point, a police officer deployed a taser, but Defendant continued to squirm on the ground
while the police officers attempted to retrieve the firearm and handcuff him. During the scuffle,
Defendant bit Officer Dedakovic’s forearm drawing blood.
When Defendant was finally handcuffed, the police officers attempted to lift him to a sitting
position. Officer Gregston began looking through Defendant’s partially opened backpack while it
was still on Defendant’s shoulders. (See Gov’t Exh. 4 at 3:33). Officer Gregston testified at the
evidentiary hearing that he was focused on taking the backpack off Defendant’s back because “he
kept trying to lay back, so I [didn’t] know if there’s another firearm or something in there.” Doc.
[91] at 27-28. Officer Gregston then cut the backpack off Defendant and set it on the curb. (See
Gov’t Exh. 4 at 4:00). Officer Gregston proceeded to briefly look through the opened backpack
Case: 4:22-cr-00070-MTS Doc. #: 122 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
when he saw an open, tan coin purse that appeared to contain a clear plastic bag of narcotics. (See
Gov’t Exh. 4 at 4:12). Officer Gregston then moved the backpack to the patrol vehicle.3
Meanwhile, Officer Dedakovic escorted Defendant to sit down on a short flight of stairs leading
to a house. Officer Dedakovic and another police officer then searched Defendant’s jacket and
clothing. (See Gov’t Exh. 5 at 5:00).
IV. Discussion
Defendant objects to Judge Collins’ Report and Recommendation claiming Defendant’s
Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police officers searched his backpack and tan coin
purse without a search warrant. Defendant argues there were no safety concerns or exigent
circumstances permitting the police officers to conduct a warrantless search of Defendant’s
backpack or tan coin purse because, “[a]ny threat the defendant allegedly posed to the officers had
been nullified when he was placed in handcuffs and separated from his body bag. He had no control
of the bag nor access to it. He was under arrest and in the custody of the police officers.” Doc.
[106] at 7. Defendant also argues that the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant
requirement does not apply because he was handcuffed, in police custody, had no control of the
bag, and was not within reaching distance of the bag at the time of the search.
A. Search Incident to Arrest
As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Judge Collins’ findings that based upon the
totality of the circumstances, there was an objectively reasonable basis for the police officers to
believe there was probable cause to arrest Defendant for felony fleeing. Probable cause exists when
the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest “[is] sufficient to lead a reasonable person
3 See also Doc. [103] at 1, 2 n. 1; Doc. [91] at 62-65, concerning suspected narcotics and a needle found by a bystander
on the street and given to Officer Harris.
Case: 4:22-cr-00070-MTS Doc. #: 122 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
to believe that the defendant has committed or is committing an offense.” Brown v. City of St.
Louis, 40 F.4th 895, 900 (8th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Here, Defendant fled from police
officers when they initiated a traffic stop of his green, spray-painted motorcycle because it did not
have license plates. Officer Gregston testified at the evidentiary hearing that there are a lot of stolen
motorcycles in the area where they were patrolling, and that stolen motorcycles are often spray-
painted and have no license plates. Doc. [91] at 17. In sum, Defendant recklessly fled from police
officers at a high rate of speed down the center lane of a busy road, resulting in a motorcycle crash.
Defendant then resisted arrest while a concealed firearm was in his waistband. And all the while,
his partially opened backpack was on his shoulders.
This Court also agrees with Judge Collins’ determination that the police officers conducted
a search incident to the arrest of Defendant. Search incident to arrest is “among the exceptions to
the warrant requirement.” Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009). “The exception derives from
interests of officer safety and evidence preservation.” Id. “[I]t is entirely reasonable for [law
enforcement] to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its
concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a
weapon or evidentiary items.” Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969).
Contrary to Defendant’s arguments, “[w]hether an officer has exclusive control of a seized
item does not, … necessarily determine whether the item remains in ‘the area from within which
[the arrestee] might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.’” United States v.
Perdoma, 621 F.3d 745, 751 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Chimel, 395 U.S. at 763 (emphasis added)).
This can be so even if a defendant is restrained. Id. at 751-53. Although Defendant was handcuffed
when Officer Gregston cut the backpack off his shoulders, the backpack was within the area of
Defendant’s immediate control, and the search was justified by both the concern for officer safety
Case: 4:22-cr-00070-MTS Doc. #: 122 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
as well as the need to collect evidence.
B. Exigency
This Court also agrees with Judge Collins’ determination that the exigent circumstances
exception to the warrant requirement justified the search of Defendant and his backpack.4 “Exigent
circumstances exist where [officers] have a legitimate concern for themselves or others … [and]
the analysis is an objective one focusing on what a reasonable, experienced [officer] would believe.”
United States v. Kuenstler, 325 F.3d 1015, 1021 (8th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). As
stated in the Report and Recommendation, “[g]iven the totality of the circumstances, including the
presence of a gun combined with the recent felony fleeing and continued resistance, [Defendant’s]
actions created an exigency which formed an objectively reasonable basis for officers to search
him and his body bag.” Doc. [103] at 9. Defendant recklessly fled from police officers on a
motorcycle at a high rate of speed and created a chaotic scene by resisting arrest and attempting to
conceal a firearm, posing a safety concern for those on the road as well as the multiple bystanders
and police officers.
V. Conclusion
The Court has conducted a de novo review of all matters related to Defendant’s Motion
and Objections, including a thorough review of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing as well as
body and dash camera video of the events that transpired. After careful consideration, the Court
will adopt, incorporate, and sustain Judge Collins’ Report and Recommendation, overrule
Defendant’s objections and deny his Motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
4 Defendant does not object to Judge Collins’ findings as to the plain view doctrine.
Case: 4:22-cr-00070-MTS Doc. #: 122 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins, Doc. [103], is SUSTAINED, ADOPTED, AND
INCORPORATED, as modified herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, Doc. [106], are OVERRULED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, Doc. [66], is DENIED.
Dated this 17th day of March, 2026
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:22-cr-00070-MTS Doc. #: 122 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>