967 F. Supp. 2d 698
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- ATF conducted an 18-month undercover operation targeting the Pagans motorcycle club, including audio recordings and agents DiGirolamo and Grander as case agents; a Lahey Party in Swan Lake, NY on May 22, 2010 formed the evidentiary basis for affidavits and searches; Santiago (Comanche) and Tarrats are moving defendants challenging the affidavits and searches; Grand Jury indicted seven individuals on narcotics conspiracy and firearms offenses in Aug. 2010, followed by a superseding indictment in Aug. 2011; Franks hearings were held in Oct. 2012 to address alleged inaccuracies and omissions in the affidavits; the court later denied Santiago’s suppression and dismissed Tarrats’s suppression motion in part (evidence suppression) but declined to dismiss the superseding indictment as to Tarrats.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment should be dismissed for outrageous government conduct | Santiago argues government misconduct to justify dismissal | Government misconduct prejudiced the grand jury | Indictment not dismissed; no outrageous conduct established |
| Whether the Santiago affidavit contained material misrepresentations/omissions requiring suppression | Santiago asserts intentional/reckless misrepresentations/omissions | Government relied on UC recordings and reports; omissions were not material | Suppression denied; no prejudicial material misrepresentation or reckless omission established |
| Whether the Tarrats affidavit contained material misrepresentations/omissions with reckless disregard and warranted suppression | Tarrats argues sequencing misrepresentation and omissions create probable cause gap | Omissions were not reckless; misrepresentations not material | Suppression of Tarrats’s physical evidence granted; indictment not dismissed; recklessness inferred and materiality found |
| Whether the suppression ruling for Tarrats is governed by Franks and Leon principles | Franks dictates suppression for reckless omissions | Leon good-faith exception applies if not Franks-suppressible | Franks suppression upheld for Tarrats; Leon not controlling due to misrepresentations; suppression of evidence |
| Whether the Franks standard requires suppression in light of Rajaratnam decision | Rajaratnam governs recklessness standard | Rajaratnam supports but does not mandate suppression here | Court applied Rajaratnam standard; suppression justified for Tarrats |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (established the Franks two-prong standard for false statements or omissions in warrants)
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1992) (outrageous conduct standard is highly demanding)
- United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2005) (presumption of validity for warrant affidavits; Franks context safeguards require showing of intent/materiality)
- United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) (franks omissions require material misrepresentation/omission and intent to mislead)
- United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) (plain-view observations can support probable cause; observed activity can corroborate transactions)
- United States v. Desena, 260 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2001) (collective knowledge of officers permissible in establishing probable cause)
- United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2013) (established subjective recklessness standard for omissions in Franks context)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (deterrence of police misconduct; limits of suppression remedies)