1:23-cr-00018
E.D.N.YAug 25, 2025Background
- Defendants Bradley Augustin and Rick Jasmin, among others, were indicted for racketeering and predicate acts in connection with the Hyena Crips, a Brooklyn street gang.
- Augustin sought suppression of statements made to law enforcement and evidence, alleging his arrest and interrogation violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
- Jasmin moved to suppress statements made in a hospital and evidence from his social media accounts and cellphones, challenging the validity of various search warrants.
- Both defendants alternatively requested evidentiary and/or Franks hearings.
- The court analyzed whether the searches, seizures, and statements violated constitutional protections, and whether any hearing was warranted based on the factual disputes alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Augustin’s/Jasmin’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arrest Pretext (Augustin) | Arrest was a pretext for criminal inquiry under guise of immigration | ICE arrest was legitimate, based on removal for firearm conviction | Arrest lawful, no evidence of pretext |
| Miranda Waiver Voluntariness (Augustin) | Waiver not knowing/voluntary due to youth, language, and coercion | Waiver verbally given; Augustin understood English and rights | Waiver valid; no coercion shown |
| Social Media and Device Warrants (Jasmin) | Warrants lacked probable cause; overbroad; content was innocent | Warrants supported by probable cause, sufficiently particular | Probable cause and particularity upheld |
| Statements in Hospital (Jasmin) | Statements should be suppressed; he was in custody and not Mirandized | Not custodial interrogation; Jasmin was a victim, spoke voluntarily | No Miranda violation; suppression denied |
| Franks Hearing (Jasmin) | Supporting affidavits contained omissions/falsehoods | Affidavits not intentionally/recklessly false; other basis for PC | No substantial preliminary showing; hearing denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Standard for probable cause; totality of circumstances)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (Miranda protections for custodial interrogation)
- North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (Verbal waiver of Miranda rights is valid)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 ("Fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (Warrants must be supported by probable cause and particularity)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (Cellphone searches generally require a warrant)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (Standards for valid waiver of rights)
- Strieff v. Utah, 579 U.S. 232 (Attenuation doctrine for excluding evidence)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Standard for obtaining an evidentiary hearing on false affidavits)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (Good faith reliance on presumptively valid law)