89 F. Supp. 3d 376
E.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Defendants Garrett and Rivera are charged in the third superseding indictment (S-3) with racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, narcotics offenses, money laundering, witness tampering, murder, and related firearm offenses.
- Indictment alleges Garrett and Rivera were leaders of TF Mafia operating in Brownsville, Brooklyn and Scranton, PA.
- Garrett’s 2010 stop in New Jersey yielded a vacuum-sealed bag in the trunk of his car and subsequent searches found controlled substances.
- Rivera’s 2012 stop in Pennsylvania led to narcotics seizures after a canine sniff and a warrant-based trunk search, with Rivera’s statements given during and after custody.
- Defendants moved pre-trial on suppression, Brady/Giglio, 404(b), severance, and related relief; the court held evidentiary hearings in Sept.–Oct. 2014 and issued rulings; it granted some motions to bring future motions for newly discovered information and denied others.
- Court’s conclusions at end: Garrett’s suppression, Brady, 404(b), and bill-of-particulars motions denied; Rivera’s suppression of evidence and statements denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of Garrett’s 2010 stop evidence | Garrett contends stop/search lack probable cause and consent; challenge to lawfulness | Garrett asserts improper stop and unlawful search without probable cause | Denied; stop supported by probable cause; plain-view/search allowed; inevitable discovery applies |
| Garrett’s post-arrest statements | Statements should be suppressed under Miranda | No valid suppression grounds given; statements may be used for impeachment | Denied as moot (government not seeking case-in-chief use) |
| Brady/Giglio immediate disclosure | Garrett seeks immediate Brady/Giglio material | Government has duty to disclose; must be timely | Denied without prejudice; court expects compliance and advance production where possible |
| Rule 404(b) timely notice | Garrett seeks timely notice of Rule 404(b) evidence | Not necessary where scheduling order already sets deadlines | Denied as moot; scheduling order governs timing |
| Severance (Bruton concerns) in joint trial | Rivera statements at proffer could violate Bruton if shared | Redaction and Bruton principles can be satisfied; joint trial efficient | Denied; redaction and Bruton considerations addressed; joint trial appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Scopo, 19 F.3d 777 (2d Cir.1994) (probable cause and reasonable suspicion standards for stops and investigations)
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1991) (automobile exception to search closed containers within vehicle)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1993) (plain-feel/plain-view limitations on warrantless searches)
- United States v. Bruton, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (confrontation bar on co-defendant confessions in joint trials; Bruton issue guidance)
- United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir.2009) (guidance on Bruton redactions in joint trials)
- United States v. Glover, 957 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir.1992) (reasonable suspicion/stemming from background checks and inventory; minimally invasive)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause required for traffic stops; objectively reasonable conduct)
- Place v. United States, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (temporary detentions may be extended with reasonable suspicion; dog sniff context)
- People v. Barrios-Moriera, 872 F.2d 12 (2d Cir.1989) (probable cause to seize contraband in a package)