United States v. Herron
2014 WL 824291
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Defendant is charged in a 23-count Superseding Indictment with leading a racketeering enterprise and related violent and narcotics offenses in the Gowanus Houses area, dating roughly January 1998 to October 2010.
- The alleged organization includes members of the Murderous Mad Dogs faction of the Bloods operating around the Gowanus Houses in Brooklyn.
- Counts span racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, drug distribution conspiracies, firearm offenses, robberies, and multiple murders (Counts 1-23).
- The Government moved for an anonymous and partially sequestered jury; Defendant moved to suppress a body armor vest and to suppress historical cell-site information.
- The court granted the anonymous/sequestered jury and reserved decision on the cell-site motion; this memorandum explains the anonymous-jury rationale and addresses the cell-site challenge.
- The cell-site issue concerns a 2009 application under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)-(d) for historical cell-site data tied to a phone used by Defendant (through a third-party registered line), with standing and Fourth Amendment considerations disputed by Defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an anonymous and semi-sequestered jury is warranted | Government argues strong protection is needed due to charges, witness tampering risk, and media attention | Defendant contends evidence is insufficient to justify protections and questions credibility of evidence | Anonymous and semi-sequestered jury granted |
| Whether Defendant has standing to challenge historical cell-site data | Government argues no standing issue since phone used by Defendant; evidence relied on for privacy interests | Defendant asserts legitimate privacy in the cell phone used by him despite registration | Defendant has Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the data |
| Whether the § 2703 order satisfied Fourth Amendment requirements and the good-faith exception applies | § 2703(d) shows reasonable grounds; good faith reliance on precedent warranted | If the affidavit misled the magistrate, suppression or Franks hearing may be warranted | § 2703 order permissible; good faith exception applies; suppression denied |
| Whether a Franks hearing is warranted regarding the cell-site affidavit | N/A | Requests a Franks hearing due to alleged omissions or misrepresentations | Franks hearing denied; omissions not deemed 'critical' to probable cause; good faith exception applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Paccione v. United States, 949 F.2d 1183 (2d Cir. 1991) (factors for anonymous jury and procedures to protect rights)
- United States v. Vario, 943 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1991) (organized crime labels alone do not justify anonymous jury)
- United States v. Aulicino, 44 F.3d 1102 (2d Cir. 1995) (court may determine necessity of hearing on protective measures)
- United States v. Pica, 692 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2012) (voir dire and questionnaire protect defendant’s rights in anonymous juries)
- United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) (cautions on relying solely on labels like ‘organized crime’ for anonymity)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (long-term GPS-like monitoring can constitute a search)
- In re Historical Cell-Site Info., 809 F. Supp. 2d 113 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (historic cell-site data requests examined under Fourth Amendment; good-faith reliance discussed)