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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 from start to finish and/or where the police employed physical or psychological coercion against the Defendants. Instead, law enforcement resorted to deception which, for reasons discussed above, this court does not deem “outrageous.” The government’s conduct was not so excessive, flagrant, scandalous, intolerable, and 17 offensive as to violate due process. Assuming for the sake of argument that Defendants’ conduct crossed the line and was “outrageous,” this court would not find that conduct so egregious as to warrant dismissal of the Indictment against Defendants. Instead, the remedy would be suppression of whatever incriminating information or evidence was obtained by Detectives Beck and Tafoya during their May 31 visit to Suite 8B and during their follow-up visit with Markishtum on June 6. It is not apparent, however, that Markishtum or the Randocks made any incriminating statements during these visits. As discussed supra (n. 16 at pp. 22-23), the Defendants gave, at best, vague and evasive statements regarding the nature of the business being conducted out of Suite 8B. Brief mention of the visits by Beck and Tafoya to Suite 8B is found in the affidavits that were submitted in support of the search warrants that were issued and executed on August 11, 2005. (Paragraphs 117-118 of Neirinckx Affidavit, Ex. 5 to Ct. Rec. 361; Paragraphs 111-112 of Nierinckx Affidavit, Ex. 7 to Ct. Rec. 361; Paragraphs 117-118 of the Neirinckx Affidavit, Ex. 8 to Ct. Rec. 361). The paragraphs contained in each of these affidavits are identical as to the 17 There was no violation of the Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination since none of the Defendants were in “custody” when they were interviewed by Detectives Beck and Tafoya. United States v. Crawford, 372 F.3d th 1048, 1059 (9 Cir. 2004) (en banc). There was also no violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel since formal adversary proceedings had not been initiated against the Defendants at the time these interviews took place. McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175-76, 111 S.Ct. 2204 (1991). ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND DISMISS - 24
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 information contained therein. None of that information pertains to statements allegedly made by any of the Defendants during the May 31 and June 6, 2005 visits, or to any documents or seals provided by Defendants to Beck and Tafoya 18 during those visits (listed at p. 639 of Ex. 9 to Ct. Rec. 361) . Even if these few paragraphs were excised from the respective affidavits, there would still have been probable cause for issuance of the warrants based on the remaining detailed information found in the lengthy affidavits, each comprised of over one hundred paragraphs and pages. This remaining information was derived from sources other than Beck and Tafoya and their May 31 and June 6, 2005 visits to Suite 8B. During oral argument, Defendants’ counsel argued that what the Secret Service got from their visit to Suite 8B on May 31, 2005 was an informant in the person of Amy Hensley. Hensley was named as a Defendant in the Indictment, but pursuant to a plea agreement, has pled guilty to Count 1and is currently awaiting sentencing. Hensley testified that at her June 8, 2005 meeting with Detective Tafoya, he told her that he thought she was the one who had taken the boxes to cover up financial wrongdoing of which she had been accused by Steven and /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 18 The court does not find credible the assertions by the Defendants that once inside the interior of Suite 8B, Detectives Beck and Tafoya, without permission from Defendants, rifled through drawers and file cabinets in search of particular documents or items. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND DISMISS - 25
Page 1 and 2: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 3 and 4: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 5 and 6: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 7 and 8: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 9 and 10: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 11 and 12: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 13 and 14: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 15 and 16: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 17 and 18: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 19 and 20: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 21 and 22: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 23: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 27: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?