109 F. Supp. 3d 305
D. Mass.2015Background
- FBI and local police investigated a kidnapping/home-invasion crew (the "Joloperros") that used GPS devices to track victims and ransom them; a July 23, 2012 kidnapping of Manuel Amparo led to arrests and cooperating witnesses.
- CW-2, CW-3, and CW-5 (all cooperating coconspirators) provided detailed, corroborated statements identifying Veloz as the crew leader, describing his home, tattoos, car, and use of GPS tracking, and identifying other participants including Matos and Romero.
- Based on CW-2’s information, agents obtained a search warrant for Veloz’s apartment on July 25, 2012 and seized laptops, a tablet, thumb drives, and multiple cell phones; later forensic imaging and analysis linked a laptop to the kidnappings and produced email addresses and phone numbers.
- Cooperating witnesses subsequently identified defendants from photo binders and arrays (some arrays of six photos; CW-2 was shown a single RMV photo at one point).
- Veloz moved to suppress: (1) photographic identifications; (2) results of the search of his residence and electronic devices (including alleged delay in examining data); (3) fruits of later searches of email accounts; and (4) sought a Franks hearing challenging omissions in the warrant affidavits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photographic identifications by cooperating witnesses | IDs were conducted without blind procedures, without non-identification instructions, without confidence statements, and some arrays were small | Procedures were constitutionally deficient and suggestive, warranting suppression | Denied — witnesses were coconspirators with prior familiarity; prior familiarity obviates need for due-process hearing about suggestiveness |
| Timing of electronic-device search / Rule 41 return | Delay (~18 months) in completing analysis and late return violated Rule 41 and Fourth Amendment reasonableness | Government copied data promptly and delayed off-site forensic analysis is permissible given complexity; Rule 41 formalities are ministerial absent prejudice | Denied — mirror imaging and later forensic analysis permissible; no prejudice shown; Rule 41 timing not basis for suppression |
| Probable cause for warrant / Franks hearing (omissions) | Affidavit lacked corroboration, relied on unreliable informant; omitted that CW‑2 initially gave false, self‑exculpatory statements | CW‑2’s admissions against penal interest and detailed, corroborated information supplied probable cause; isolated initial denial is not a material omission | Denied — totality of circumstances established probable cause; omission of CW‑2’s initial denial was not material to probable cause and did not warrant Franks hearing |
| Suppression of email searches (Google/Apple) | Email account searches were fruits of unlawful laptop search and must be suppressed | Electronic evidence and derived searches are admissible because underlying laptop search was lawful | Denied — email searches not suppressed because underlying search of laptop was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (court reviews due-process standard for suggestive identification procedures)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (standards for obtaining a hearing to challenge false or reckless affidavit statements)
- United States v. Ganias, 755 F.3d 125 (discusses limits on retention and review of seized computer data)
- United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (statements against penal interest by informant carry indicia of reliability)