United States v. Meregildo
1:11-cr-00576
S.D.N.Y.Sep 24, 2012Background
- Pauley III denies suppression motions by Meregildo and Colon and Miranda, while denying Miranda’s various requests related to statements, severance, and disclosures; an evidentiary hearing was held.
- Meregildo was arrested at the Courtlandt Apartment after officers located him sleeping; items seized included NY ID, USB drive, iPhone, and iPod Touch, and pants searched prior to giving them to him.
- Colon’s mother consented to a search of Colon’s bedroom at the 161st Street Apartment; no warrant was produced at the hearing, and consent form was completed with a limited scope.
- Miranda was arrested in Monticello and transported to Manhattan; during transport he was questioned about charges while handcuffed, and Miranda rights were read prior to questioning.
- The government relied on consent, incident-to-arrest searches, and plain-view doctrine to justify seizures; Miranda waiver was found voluntary and knowing, and bills of particulars and Brady/Giglio material were addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of searches at Courtlandt and 161st Street | Meregildo's items were seized lawfully as incident to arrest or plain view; Colon's bedroom search was consented to. | Potential overreach or improper consent could render seizures unlawful; consent may have been invalid or coerced. | Seizures upheld; Courtlandt search valid as incident to arrest or plain view; Colon consent voluntary. |
| Custodial interrogation and Miranda waiver | Waiver may not have been voluntary, knowingly, or intelligently; rights advisement may have been improper. | Miranda rights sufficiently explained; waiver voluntary; statements admissible. | Miranda waiver voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently; post-arrest statements admissible. |
| Bill of particulars and Brady/Gigli disclosures | Need for detailed bill of particulars and early Brady/Gigli material for Counts Two, Fifteen, and Twenty-Eight. | Bill of particulars required; Brady/Gigli materials should be early and comprehensive. | Bill of particulars denied as unnecessary; Brady/Giglio production addressed; motion moot. |
| Severance | Severance warranted due to potential prejudice from co-defendant evidence. | Joint trial preferred; severance justified by substantial prejudice or complexity. | Severance denied; joint trial maintained with limiting instructions as needed. |
| Count Fifteen sufficiency and rule of lenity | Count Fifteen sufficiently alleges conspiracy and drug offenses; potential ambiguity for lenity. | Ambiguity in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) supports lenity relief for Count Fifteen. | Count Fifteen sufficient; lenity not invoked; statute not ambiguous given Supreme/Second Circuit interpretations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (per se reasonableness of searches without warrant; exceptions apply)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (scope of search incident to arrest)
- Robinson v. United States, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (full search incident to lawful arrest; impairment of privacy; weapons/evidence)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (subjective intent of officers irrelevant to probable cause)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1993) (plain-view identification; immediacy of incriminating nature)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (plain-view doctrine elements)
- United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d 838 (10th Cir. 1999) (cell phones in criminal investigations; plaintext view)
- Stavroulakis v. United States, 952 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1992) (indictment sufficiency; tracking statutory language)
- Torres v. United States, 901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1991) (bill of particulars for conspiracy; when required)
- Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1992), 952 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1992) (indictment sufficiency; conspiracy standards)
- DiPietro v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2225 (S. Ct. 2011) (cocaine base definitions; lenity implications)
- Fields v. United States, 113 F.3d 313 (2d Cir. 1997) (statutory ambiguity and rule of lenity rejected)
- Salomeh United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) (prejudice and severance considerations)