United States v. Quashie
162 F. Supp. 3d 135
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- Defendant is charged in a superseding indictment with Hobbs Act conspiracy and robberies and two § 924(c) firearm counts; he moved to suppress an identification and evidence from a cellphone and to dismiss/sever various indictment counts.
- After a robbery on July 10, 2009, a cellphone was found in the victim’s apartment; NYPD searched the phone without a warrant and used the number to identify defendant and obtain a prior-arrest photo used in a photo array.
- Detective Brockman prepared a six-photo array (one photo of defendant and five similar photos), showed it to victim Salazar at his residence, and then presented the photos sequentially when Salazar became upset; Salazar identified defendant and initialed the array.
- Defendant argued the photo array and sequential procedure were unduly suggestive and that the warrantless search of the cellphone violated the Fourth Amendment (and raised Riley-related and abandonment arguments).
- Defendant also moved to dismiss or consolidate Counts Three and Five (§ 924(c)), arguing Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence and that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague; he also asserted duplicity/multiplicity and sought severance of Counts Four and Five.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo-array identification admissibility | Array and procedure were proper; identification admissible | Array and sequential showing were unduly suggestive and produced unreliable ID | Denied — array not unduly suggestive; sequential showing and officer’s consoling not impermissible; admissibility stands |
| Cellphone warrantless search | Phone was abandoned at scene; officers acted in good faith | Phone belonged to defendant (stolen) and expectation of privacy existed; Riley should control | Denied — phone was abandoned by those who left it; Riley (post‑search) inapplicable; good‑faith exception applies if needed |
| Validity of § 924(c) counts (Counts Three & Five) — crime of violence & residual clause | Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause; residual clause is distinct from ACCA and not void | Hobbs Act can be committed by non‑violent threats; residual clause is unconstitutionally vague (Johnson) | Denied — Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under the force clause; residual clause here differs from ACCA and is not void |
| Duplicity/multiplicity and severance of counts (Counts One, Three, Four, Five) | Indictment specifies dates; jury can be instructed; counts are logically connected and may be tried together | Count Three unclear as to which predicate; Counts overlap causing multiplicity; severance needed to avoid prejudice | Denied — indictment not duplicitous or multiplicitous as charged; Government’s clarifying jury instructions address ambiguity; joinder appropriate given overlapping actors and common plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Maldonado-Rivera v. United States, 922 F.2d 934 (2d Cir.) (totality test for suggestiveness and reliability of identification)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (witness reliability affects weight, not admissibility)
- Jakobetz v. United States, 955 F.2d 786 (2d Cir.) (photo array undue-suggestiveness standard)
- Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.) (knowledge that suspect is in lineup does not automatically taint procedure)
- Levasseur v. United States, 816 F.2d 37 (2d Cir.) (abandonment forfeits expectation of privacy)
- Torres v. United States, 949 F.2d 606 (2d Cir.) (abandonment inquiry focuses on intent to retain privacy)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to suppression)
- United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (standing to challenge Fourth Amendment searches)