483 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2007), 06-1920, United States v. Materas

Docket Nº:06-1920.
Citation:483 F.3d 27
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Keith MATERAS, Defendant, Appellant.
Case Date:April 10, 2007
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 27

483 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2007)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Keith MATERAS, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 06-1920.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

April 10, 2007

Heard Feb. 7, 2007.

Page 28

Frank L. Bruno, for appellant.

Terry L. Ollila, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, and Aixa Maldonado-Quiñones, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for appellee.

Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Torruella, and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant Keith Materas appeals the district court's denial of his motions to suppress evidence seized and statements made during the search that led to his arrest for possession with intent to distribute ecstasy and methamphetamine. We agree with the district court that Materas was not entitled to a Franks hearing 1 on the suppression of the evidence, and that Materas was not entitled to suppression of statements made after he waived his Miranda rights.

I. Background

A. The Search Warrant

On October 14, 2004, Detective Frank Bourgeois of the Nashua Police Department applied for a no-knock search warrant for 374 Thornton Street, Manchester, New Hampshire, which he alleged was Materas's residence. In his supporting affidavit, Detective Bourgeois relied on the following events as a basis for the warrant.

In January 2004, a man complained to the Manchester Police Department that

Page 29

his boyfriend was being held against his will by Materas and Peter Deprisco at 374 Thornton Street. He expressed his belief that Materas and Deprisco were supplying large amounts of methamphetamine to dealers in Manchester, and eventually admitted that he had bought drugs from them in the past.

Six months later, another man told the Manchester Police Department that he had been held against his will at 454 Hanover Street in Manchester. He claimed that he had smoked what he believed to be methamphetamine with several people, including one named Keith. The police responded to the same address and identified "Keith" as Keith Materas.

In September 2004, the Manchester Police Department responded to a domestic dispute at 374 Thornton Street, where Materas and Deprisco identified themselves as co-owners and residents of that address.

During the same month, the New Hampshire Drug Task Force, of which Detective Bourgeois was a member, received information that an individual named Keith, a homosexual man who lived in Manchester, was the largest supplier of methamphetamine in the state. In an unrelated incident, the Nashua Police Department also learned from a cooperating individual in its custody that two men named Keith and Peter of 454 Hanover Street were selling methamphetamine.

On October 12, 2004, Detective Bourgeois arranged a controlled purchase of a small amount of methamphetamine by a confidential informant at 374 Thornton Street. The informant entered the residence and returned with methamphetamine, which he claimed to have bought inside from Materas.

B. The Search

After the Manchester District Court issued the no-knock warrant on October 14, 2005, the police executed the warrant the same day, led by Detective Bourgeois. Ten to fifteen officers entered the residence with guns drawn 2 and proceeded directly toward the basement, where they believed Materas and Deprisco were residing while the upper floors of the residence were under construction. In fact, Materas did not reside at 374 Thornton Street; he had been living at 454 Hanover Street for more than three months prior to the application for the search warrant. Nonetheless, the officers found Materas and Deprisco standing in the hall, where they were apprehended and handcuffed. Materas maintains that he was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of entry.

Detective Bourgeois proceeded into the basement, where he found Materas's dog. Materas claims that the detective threatened to shoot the dog if he did not keep him under control. Detective Bourgeois denied making such a threat, testifying that he put the dog in a closet in order to allow the officers to search the room.

The officers then moved the two men into the basement, where Deprisco became uncooperative. After Deprisco was removed from the room, and while approximately six other officers searched the room, Detective Bourgeois told Materas, who was still handcuffed, that if he would tell them where the drugs were, it would save them from having to tear the place apart. Detective Bourgeois testified at trial that his intent was to make the process

Page 30

easier for everyone, given the clutter in the room and his belief that the drugs were there. Materas then indicated that the drugs were located in a clear plastic case behind Detective Bourgeois.

At some point, Detective Bourgeois searched Materas, and in the process asked him to undo his pants. Because he was not wearing underwear, his genitals were exposed for a brief period.

After the drugs were found, Materas was removed upstairs to the kitchen area, where he was read his Miranda rights and questioned further. Detective Bourgeois testified that Materas did not exhibit signs of being under the influence of any substance, although Materas did tell the detective that he was a methamphetamine addict...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP