United States v. Salaman
3:22-cr-00076
D. Conn.Jul 29, 2024Background
- Luis Salaman was charged by a federal grand jury with fentanyl trafficking conspiracy and related offenses, following an FBI investigation.
- The FBI used a pole camera for nearly three months to conduct continuous video surveillance outside Salaman’s suspected residence.
- Multiple controlled drug buys, surveillances, and communication interceptions tied Salaman and associates to narcotics operations at the target address.
- Search warrants were obtained for Salaman’s residence and subsequently for four cellphones found therein.
- During the search, agents found cellphones, narcotics paraphernalia, and packaging materials, some located in rooms associated with Salaman.
- Salaman moved to suppress evidence from the pole camera, the cellphones, and narcotics paraphernalia, arguing Fourth Amendment violations, lack of particularity, lack of probable cause, late execution of the warrants, and improper plain view seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Salaman's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless pole camera surveillance violated Fourth Amendment | Prolonged surveillance of home exterior violated his reasonable expectation of privacy | Surveillance was of a public area and permitted under precedent | Prolonged pole camera use was a search, but exclusion not warranted due to good faith reliance on existing law |
| Search warrants for cellphones lacked particularity | Warrants failed to specify apps, data types, or contain temporal limits | Warrants specifically described phones, related crimes, and items sought | Warrants satisfied particularity; no suppression required |
| Probable cause to seize/search four cellphones was lacking | No sufficient nexus between cellphones and criminal activity | Facts established fair probability phones were used for drug trafficking | Probable cause existed; good faith reliance defeats suppression |
| Timeliness of execution of cellphone search warrants (Rule 41) | Data extraction after 14-day period violated Rule 41 | Rule 41's 14-day period applies to seizure, not data review | No Rule 41 violation; even if so, no prejudice—suppression denied |
| Plain view seizure of narcotics paraphernalia outside warrant's scope | Paraphernalia not specified in warrant, not contraband | Items' incriminating nature apparent in plain view during lawful search | Plain view exception applied; seizure proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes good faith exception to exclusionary rule for reliance on issued warrant)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain view doctrine does not require inadvertent discovery)
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) (historical cell location info acquisition is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (sets out the totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (defines the plain view doctrine)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (limits plain view search to items whose incriminating character is immediately apparent)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted vicariously)