United States v. Marchese, 2013 WL 4495000

Defendant is charged in a two-count indictment with unlawful manufacture of 50+ marijuana plants and unlawful use of premises for manufacturing, distributing, and using marijuana.
Over 60 marijuana plants and growing materials were found at defendant's Lackawanna, NY residence on May 3, 2006.
Magistrate Judge Schroeder conducted a three-day suppression hearing and recommended suppression of evidence and statements but not dismissal of the indictment.
District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and granted suppression of the evidence and statements, denying the indictment dismissal.
The government argued the entry was lawful by consent or plain-view/plain-smell, and that exigent circumstances or public-safety exceptions applied; defendant contended entry was illegal absent a warrant.
Key issue at trial court level was whether the initial entry/search and the resulting statements were admissible under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and related suppression doctrines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial entry/search of the premises was lawful	Government argues defendant consented to entry; plain-view/odor observations followed entry.	Entry was illegal without a warrant or valid consent, violating the Fourth Amendment.	Entry/search suppressed; consent not voluntary; Payton barrier crossed; suppression granted.
Whether statements observed/obtained at 181 Center Street are admissible	Observations were the result of lawful entry; statements derived therefrom are admissible.	Statements are fruits of the illegal entry and should be suppressed.	Statements suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Whether Miranda warnings were provided and whether custodial interrogation occurred without warnings at the residence	Post-entry Miranda warnings were provided later; statements should be admissible after warning.	No Miranda warnings were given during the initial custodial interrogation at the residence; interrogation was custodial.	Custodial interrogation without warnings; statements suppressed; Miranda-related attenuation analysis applied.
Whether the pre-indictment delay violated due process requiring dismissal of the indictment	Delay prejudiced defendant and justified dismissal under due process standards.	Delay caused prejudice; due process violation.	Indictment not dismissed; delay not shown to be purposeful or prejudicial in a due-process sense; suppression nevertheless granted.

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (home-entry warrant requirement; seizure inside home presumptively unreasonable)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent to search must be voluntary)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (consent by third-party occupant; totality of circumstances)
Loria v. Gorman, 306 F.3d 1271 (2d Cir. 2002) (credibility findings from magistrate-level credibility determinations favored)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (physical invasion of private property and limits on sensing technologies)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree; suppression of derivative evidence and statements)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (attenuation and exclusionary rule; interrogation taint after illegal arrest)
Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1979) (Miranda warnings do not cure Fourth Amendment violations; threshold requirement)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (definition of interrogation)
United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1977) (due process and pre-indictment delay; prosecutorial judgment)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971) (principles governing due process and delays)
United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) (pre-indictment delay and due process burden)
United States v. Kirsh, 54 F.3d 1062 (2d Cir. 1995) (custody and interrogation standards; corroborating factors)