Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Garcia

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

January 6, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE TRINIDAD GARCIA, JR. (04), Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS

          Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge United States District Court

         Defendant Jose Trinidad Garcia, Jr., has been indicted for one count of Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances. [Filing No. 1.] He has filed a motion to suppress all evidence that he claims the Government illegally obtained as a result of wiretap surveillance. [Filing No. 237.] The Government opposes Mr. Garcia's motion. [Filing No. 251.] For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Mr. Garcia's motion to suppress.

         I.

         Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

         The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “When a search is authorized by a warrant, deference is owed to the issuing judge's conclusion that there is probable cause.” United States v. Carroll, 750 F.3d 700, 703-04 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Sutton, 742 F.3d 770, 773 (7th Cir. 2014)). “Courts should defer to the issuing judge's initial probable cause finding if there is substantial evidence in the record that supports [the] decision.” Carroll, 750 F.3d at 704.

         II.

         Background

         In 2015, law enforcement was investigating a drug-trafficking and money-laundering conspiracy involving several individuals, including Mr. Garcia. It filed five separate applications for interception of wire communications during the course of its investigation. The district court issued five Orders authorizing each application:

• On August 7, 2015, the first Order was issued authorizing wiretap surveillance of Target Phone 1 for a cellular telephone used by Alfonso Pineda-Hernandez, and Target Phones 2 and 3 for cellular telephones used by Nicolas Cazares-Garcia.
• On August 26, 2015, the second Order was issued authorizing wiretap surveillance of Target Phone 4 for a cellular telephone used by Mr. Pineda-Hernandez and Target Phone 5 and 6 for cellular telephones used by Miguel Barragan-Lopez.
• On September 4, 2015, the third Order was issued authorizing an extension of the continued interception of Target Phones 2 and 3, wiretap surveillance of Target Phone 7 for a cellular telephone used by Mr. Barragan-Lopez, and wiretap surveillance of Target Phone 8 for a cellular telephone used by Mr. Pineda-Hernandez.
• The fourth Order was issued on September 28, 2015 authorizing interception of Target Phone 9 for a cellular telephone used by Mr. Cazares-Garcia, Target Phone 10 for a cellular telephone used by Aurelio Estrada-Alvarado, and Target Phone 11 for a cellular telephone used by Mr. Garcia.
• The last Order was issued on October 19, 2015 authorizing interception of Target Phone 12 for a cellular telephone used by Mr. Pineda-Hernandez and Target Phones 13 and 14 for cellular telephones used by Mr. Garcia.

         As a result of using wiretap surveillance and other investigative procedures, law enforcement applied for and obtained two search warrants for two separate Indianapolis addresses. Mr. Garcia challenges all five applications and district court Orders, and claims that all evidence seized from the two properties should be suppressed. [Filing No. 238 at 1-2.]

         III.

         Discussion Mr. Garcia raises three issues, and the Court has restructured them as follows: 1) the August 7, September 4, September 28, and October 19, 2015 wiretap applications[1] do not satisfy the necessity requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) that normal investigative procedures were inadequate, [Filing No. 238 at 10; Filing No. 238 at 15]; 2) the five Orders authorizing the wiretap surveillance did not make adequate findings regarding the inadequacy of using other investigative procedures, [Filing No. 238 at 5]; and 3) evidence seized from two Indianapolis properties as a result of the execution of two search warrants triggered by the contents of the wiretap should be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree, [Filing No. 238 at 20]. The Court will address the issues accordingly.[2]

         A. Wiretap Applications

         Mr. Garcia claims that each wiretap application fails to provide a specific factual basis to demonstrate that other forms of investigative procedures either failed to accomplish the goals of the investigation or reasonably appeared unlikely to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.