779 F. Supp. 2d 208
D. Mass.2011Background
- Defendants Soto family and Litwin move to suppress May 2007 searches of 56 Lawrence Road and 14 Moulton Street, the Gateway laptop, and recorded inmate calls; they also seek a Franks hearing alleging false statements in the supporting affidavits.
- 2006 search at 56 Lawrence Road yielded evidence including a stolen motorcycle; Judge Tauro later suppressed fruits of that search for lack of standing and the government did not appeal.
- 2007 affidavit by Agent Everett links ongoing fraud schemes (Bradley alias, Amaro) to the 56 Lawrence Road investigation and describes the seized laptop and related evidence.
- May 16, 2007 warrants issued for 56 Lawrence Road and 14 Moulton Street; the affidavits track prior material and add post-2006 fraud details and inmate telephone call evidence.
- Essex County inmate calls were monitored under a pre-existing written policy notifying inmates of monitoring and recording; defendants seek suppression under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
- Court will resolve standing, then address the merits of the suppression motions, including the Franks issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge searches of 56 Lawrence Road and 14 Moulton Street | Sotos have standing to challenge the 56 Lawrence Road search | Litwin has standing to challenge 14 Moulton Street; Sotos lack standing for Litwin property | Sotos have standing for 56 Lawrence Road; Litwin has standing for 14 Moulton Street; no standing to challenge Chrysler or laptop; all defendants can challenge Essex calls. |
| Monitored Essex House telephone calls and Title III | Title III suppression due to interception | Routine prison monitoring under policy does not constitute Title III interception | Monitored inmate calls were not suppressed; policy-based recording valid under First Circuit precedent. |
| Connection between 56 Lawrence Road and alleged crime (nexus/probable cause) | Affidavit showed nexus via conversations, family involvement, and prior warrants | Nexus or probability connection challenged or insufficient | Affidavit established fair probability of evidence of ongoing fraud at 56 Lawrence Road. |
| Particularity and staleness of the warrant affidavit | Affidavit incorporated and tied to ongoing conduct; sufficient specificity | Some statements alleged as stale or vague | Warrants are sufficiently particular and not stale given continuing criminal conduct and corroborating post-2006 information. |
| Franks hearing request | Affidavit contained deliberate false statements for probable-cause | Insufficient showing of knowing falsity or materiality | Franks hearing denied; no material false statements established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (personal Fourth Amendment rights; standing analysis; subjective and objective privacy expectations)
- Salvucci v. United States, 448 U.S. 83 (1980) (automatic standing limitations; possessory interests not dispositive for suppression)
- Padilla v. United States, 508 U.S. 77 (1993) (co-conspirator standing; not applicable to suppression in this context)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) (abandonment/expectation of privacy; limits of privacy in possessions of others)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (requirement of description in warrants; incorporation via supporting affidavit)
- Bertine (Colorado v. Bertine), 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory of a lawfully impounded container may be conducted under standardized procedures)
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) (automobile searches; closed containers exception to warrant requirement)
- United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289 (2000) (probable cause and evidence located in a home may be inferred during ongoing conduct)