GEORGE Z. SINGAL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Suppress & Request for a
Counsel for Defendant Alexandre filed a motion to seal the exhibits supporting the pending Motion to Suppress, indicating a request from the Government that only the facts laid out in Defendant's Motion papers be publicly disclosed at this time. The Court hereby GRANTS WITHOUT OBJECTION the Motion to SEAL but orders that the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 58) itself be unsealed.
The exhibits provided to the Court as sealed attachments consist of: (1) the twelve-page search warrant application (Def. Ex. A); (2) a one-page report from Trooper Adam Schmidt regarding a January 9, 2018 debriefing of a confidential source (Def. Ex. B), (3) a two-page memorandum of interview detailing an interview conducted by U.S. Postal Inspector T.I. DuMond on February 21, 2018 (Def. Ex. C), (4) a one-page police report from Trooper Schmidt regarding a February 13, 2018 traffic stop (Def. Ex. D), (5) three-pages of notes from a February 14, 2018 debriefing of an informant (Def. Ex. E), and (6) a one-page report by Trooper William Pusey involving a January 7, 2018 well-being check that Pusey and Schmidt conducted at 38 Beech Street, Lyman, Maine (Def. Ex. F).
Having reviewed all of these exhibits as well as the related briefs, the Court concludes that it is possible for counsel to produce redacted versions of these six exhibits and thereby allow for some public review of the evidence the Court has relied on in deciding Defendants' Motion to Suppress. Therefore, counsel shall file proposed redacted versions of Defendants' Exhibits A-F exhibits to the Clerk's Office in paper no later than April 26, 2019.
Defendants David Alexandre and Kevin Wallace are currently named in a six-count Indictment (ECF No. 26). The Indictment alleges that on or about February 28, 2018, Alexandre and Wallace each possessed methamphetamine with intent to distribute (Counts I & II), possessed a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking (Count III & IV), and possessed a firearm while being an unlawful drug user (Counts V & VI).
On February 28, 2018, Maine State Police Trooper David Coflesky applied for a search warrant to search 38 Beech Street, Lyman, Maine ("the Target Residence"), as well as three specific vehicles located at the Target Residence. Trooper Coflesky supported his request for a search warrant with an affidavit containing sixty-eight numbered paragraphs. (
A Maine District Court Judge issued the warrant. Upon searching the Target Residence, the police discovered methamphetamine and firearms, which form the basis of the pending Indictment.
Defendants contend that the Court should grant a
"To get a Franks hearing, a party must first make two `substantial preliminary showings': (1) that a false statement or omission in the affidavit was made knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth; and (2) the falsehood or omission was necessary to the finding of probable cause."
In order to ultimately have evidence suppressed based on alleged false statements or omissions in a search warrant affidavit, "the defendant must meet an even more exacting standard [than for a Franks hearing]."
Here, the Court focuses its initial review of the search warrant affidavit on whether it establishes probable cause even if the paragraphs that Defendants assert are false are set aside. Excluding the allegedly false statements in paragraphs 15, 16, 34, 36 & 37, and viewing the remaining evidence in its "totality," there is ample evidence to establish probable cause to search the Target Residence.
The affidavit also recounted in ten paragraphs the February 1, 2018 patrol by Corporal MacDonald in the area of 38 Beech Street. As explained in the affidavit, MacDonald observed a vehicle with a defective break light slowing down near the Target Residence and moving towards its driveway. The officer attempted to pull the vehicle over, it fled, and, after a chase, the officer stopped the vehicle. Upon being arrested, the driver claimed he did not know anyone at the Target Residence but admitted to having just used methamphetamine. The next day, officers discovered a baggie containing what appeared to be methamphetamine in the area where the driver had been instructed to lay prone on the ground. (Def. Ex. A at 835-36.)
The affidavit also recounts what law enforcement had learned as a result of a February 20, 2018 traffic stop near 38 Beech Street during which 1.96 grams of methamphetamine had been seized. As relayed in the affidavit, the three arrested occupants of the stopped vehicle indicated that they had driven a methamphetamine supplier, S.D., to the Oakwood Mobile Home Community, in order for him to acquire the necessary supply of methamphetamine they wanted to purchase. After dropping S.D., the deal was delayed by concerns that law enforcement was in the area and had stopped another vehicle departing 38 Beech Street earlier in the evening. Ultimately, the vehicle stop occurred while they were waiting to pick-up S.D. As also relayed in the affidavit, S.D. had contact with law enforcement just two days prior on February 16, 2018. During the interview on that day, S.D. stated that he had just come from, and was about to return to, the Target Residence where his friend lived. (Def. Ex. A at 837-839.)
Finally, Coflesky's affidavit describes a "trash pull" of five trash bags left outside the Target Residence on February 23, 2018. A search of those bags revealed: several hypodermic needles, "snorting straws," blue baggies with gold crowns (which matched baggies found in connection with the February 20, 2019 methamphetamine seizure), counterfeit money, a discarded cell-phone, and mail addressed to 38 Beech Street. (Def. Ex. A. at 839.)
Viewed together, these facts clearly generate a "fair probability" that "contraband" or other evidence of illegal drug-related activity could be found in the Target Residence.
Having "plainly failed to meet the second [
Beyond the paragraphs that Defendants assert contain false statements, Defendants also argue that Trooper Coflesky omitted that the Target Residence was a "boarding home" from the affidavit and that this omission "effect[s]" how the evidence may be viewed in terms of establishing probable cause. (Def. Mot., PageID # 154-155.) However, Defendants point to no specific evidence in the record that would permit the Court to conclude that the Target Residence was a boarding home or any other kind of multi-unit dwelling.
For the reasons just stated, the Defendants' Motion to Suppress & Request for a
SO ORDERED.