order denying motions to suppress and dismiss - University of Illinois ...

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
himself as a Post Falls police officer and left a business card with the Defendants
confirming the same. There is no doubt Tafoya hoped the Defendants would
assume he was a member of the Post Falls Police Department. The court finds
credible Tafoya’s testimony that he did not say anything to the Defendants about
the nature of his official position and that he was not asked about it by the
10
Defendants. The court also finds that this does not rise to the level of the
“affirmative or deliberate” misrepresentation at issue in Bosse where the state
11
inspector specifically advised the defendant that the ATF agent “is with me.”
Furthermore, in Bosse, the state inspector was truly conducting a state inspection
10
The Defendants who testified at the hearing are not credible on this
factual matter. See pp. 6-7 supra.
11
Nor does it rise to the level of the affirmative misrepresentation at issue in
United States v. Stringer, 408 F.Supp.2d 1083 (D. Or. 2006). In Stringer, a
district court dismissed indictments, and alternatively ordered evidence
suppressed, where it found egregious government misconduct in concealing in a
civil securities investigative proceedings the fact that criminal prosecutions were
already contemplated and for which the civil proceedings were being used to
gather evidence. In response to direct questions by defendant’s attorney, a
Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) attorney affirmatively misrepresented that
the defendant Stringer was not the “target” of any investigation and that the SEC
was not working in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney’s Office regarding a
possible criminal investigation. Id. at 1087-89, citing among other cases, United
th
States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 300 (5 Cir. 1977). The court noted it is a due
process violation if government agents make affirmative misrepresentations as to
the nature or existence of parallel proceedings and that a government agency may
not develop a criminal investigation under the auspices of a civil investigation.
Because the defendants were identified as subjects of a criminal investigation, the
government’s tactic to move forward under the guise of a civil investigation
violated defendants’ due process rights. Id. at 1089, citing United States v.
th
Robson, 477 F.2d 13, 18 (9 Cir. 1973).
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
TO SUPPRESS AND DISMISS - 18