United States v. Joiles
1:19-cr-00807
S.D.N.Y.Dec 1, 2021Background
- Rosario and Joiles indicted (Nov. 13, 2019) for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cocaine; Joiles also charged with distribution causing death; Rosario separately charged with a §924(c) firearm count.
- Law enforcement seized Rosario's phone at arrest (Oct. 25, 2019). A November 26, 2019 warrant authorized ESI search; decryption required a third-party vendor but the device was not promptly sent.
- On Dec. 31, 2020 the magistrate issued a warrant limiting most categories to April 1, 2019–Oct. 25, 2019 but authorizing four categories (contacts, financial records, photos/videos, user attribution) without temporal limits.
- Government used Cellebrite to review an extraction in Feb. 2021 and observed message chains that began before April 1, 2019 but continued into the relevant period; that prompted a Feb. 18, 2021 warrant removing time limits.
- Rosario moved to sever his trial from Joiles and to suppress evidence seized from the phone on particularity/overbreadth and manner-of-search grounds; the court denied severance and denied suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance under Rules 8(b) and 14 | Joinder proper: both sold pills containing fentanyl to undercover officer; conspiracy allegation ties acts | Rosario argues no evidence he conspired to traffic fentanyl and joinder is improper and prejudicial | Denied — joinder proper under Rule 8(b); Rosario failed to show severe prejudice requiring severance under Rule 14; limiting instructions suffice |
| Particularity of Dec. 2020 warrant (non-temporal categories) | Warrant identified offenses, limited devices, and sought items "relating to the Subject Offenses," satisfying particularity | Warrant was insufficiently particular because those four categories lacked temporal limits | Denied — warrant sufficiently particular; items limited by relation to charged offenses |
| Overbreadth / Probable cause for non-temporal categories | Affidavit and officer experience supplied a nexus: traffickers store photos, videos, and financial records relevant to offenses | No probable cause to seize photos/videos/financial records outside the April–Oct 2019 window | Denied on the merits and, in any event, evidence admissible under Leon good-faith exception because no clear controlling precedent required temporal limits |
| Manner of search / minimization (review of pre-period messages) | Review of chains that predated period was a reasonable cursory review; plain‑view evidence properly considered | Government conducted an indiscriminate general search and failed to use available tools/minimization | Denied — court found agents did not act in bad faith; cursory review of pre-period material inevitable and permissible to identify responsive items |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (Rule 14: severance required only if joint trial would seriously risk compromising a defendant's specific trial right or reliable verdict)
- United States v. Rittweger, 524 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2008) (commonsense test for joinder efficiencies and factual overlap)
- United States v. Cervone, 907 F.2d 332 (2d Cir. 1990) (joinder proper when acts are unified by substantial identity of facts or common plan)
- United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2003) (apply common-sense approach to determine factual overlap for joinder)
- United States v. Morales, 577 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1978) (defendant need not know exact drug identity to be guilty under §841(a)(1))
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause for a warrant judged under totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule when officers reasonably rely on a magistrate-issued warrant)
- United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2013) (warrant particularity for digital searches: identify offense, place, and items by relation to the crime)