U.S. v. Carrillo

Decision Date20 November 2000
Docket NumberCrim. A. No. 99-CR-300-S.
Citation123 F.Supp.2d 1223
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Manuel Guillermo CARRILLO, a/k/a "Psycho," a/k/a "Memo," Hector Hinojosa Gonzalez, a/k/a "Hector Hinojosa," a/k/a "Antonio Rameroz," a/k/a "Manuel Gonzalez," Raul Atayde, a/k/a "Bam Bam," Andres Jaquin Luna III, a/k/a "Buddha," Emiliano Zapata Licon, a/k/a "Zap," Roger Jiron, Juan Castorena, a/k/a "Chuco," Augustine Olivas, a/k/a "Chucky," Oscar Pacheco-Vasquez, a/k/a "Loco," Jose Manuel Aguilar Perez, a/k/a "Ruben Lopez-Gonzalez," a/k/a "Manny," a/k/a "Manuel," Jose Juan Melendez, Eduardo Rivera Morales, a/k/a "Eddie," a/k/a "Edwin Moras," Mark Jones, Brandy Jones, a/k/a "Rose," Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Colorado

Alvin J. LaCabe, Stephanie Podolak, United States Attorney's Office, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.

Arthur S. Nieto, Arthur S. Nieto, P.C., Richard N. Stuckey, Richard N. Stuuckey, P.C., Patrick J. Burke, Patrick J. Burke, Law Offices, Denver, CO, Richard A. Hostetler, Law Offices of Marks and Hostetler, Denver, CO, Eugene Scott Baroway, Baroway, Porter & Thomas, Englewood, CO, Robert William Pepin, Federal Public Defenders Office, Denver, CO, Clifford J. Barnard, Boulder, CO, Eugene Deikman, Eugene Deikman, P.C., Charles G. Leidner, Scott Jurdem, Buchanan, Jurdem & Zulauf, Denver, CO, Donald R. Knight, Littleton, CO, William Michael Whelan, Jr., Boulder, CO, Ralph B. Rhodes, Denver, CO, Edward A. Pluss, Edward A. Pluss Law Office, Denver, CO, John Henry Schlie, John F. Sullivan, III, John Henry Schlie & Barry A. Schwartz, PC, Denver, CO, Edward R. Harris, Denver, CO, Richard Kent Kornfeld, Isaacson, Rosenbaum, Woods & Levy, P.C., Denver, CO, Normando R. Pacheco, Denver, CO, Mark

Cameron Johnson, Boulder, CO, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SPARR, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the court on the following fifteen motions filed by the Defendants:

1. Defendant Carrillo's Motion to Suppress Intercepted Electronic and Wire Communications (filed September 21, 2000);

2. Defendant Hinojosa Gonzales' Motion to Suppress Electronic Communications and for Franks Hearing (filed September 25, 2000);

3. Defendant Atayde's Motion to Suppress Intercepted Communications (filed September 25, 2000);

4. Defendant Luna's Motion to Suppress Intercepted Electronic and Wire Communication (filed September 26, 2000);

5. Defendant Licon's Motion to Suppress Wiretap Evidence and for a Franks Hearing (filed September 26, 2000);

6. Defendant Castorena's Motion to Suppress Wiretaps (filed September 22, 2000);

7. Defendant Olivas' Motion to Suppress Evidence Derived from Wiretaps 99-WT-3-Z, 99-WT-4-Z, 99-WT-6-Z, and 99-WT-9-Z (filed September 25, 2000);

8. Defendant Pacheco-Vasquez' Motion to Suppress Wiretap Evidence (filed September 25, 2000);

9. Defendant Mark Jones' Motion to Suppress Intercepted Wire Communications (filed August 25, 2000); and

10. Defendant Brandy Jones' Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized Pursuant to Wiretap (filed September 24, 2000);

11. Defendant Carrillo's Motion to Join in Co-Defendant Motions to Suppress Intercepted Electronic and Wire Communications (filed September 21, 2000);

12. Defendant Licon's Motion for Leave to Join the Wiretap Suppression Motions of CoDefendants (filed September 26, 2000);

13. Defendant Jiron's Motion to Join Co-Defendant's [sic] Motions to Suppress Evidence Seized Pursuant to Wiretap (filed October 13, 2000);

14. Defendant Castorena's Motion to Join in Specific Motions Filed by Co-Defendants (filed May 9, 2000); and

15. Defendant Morales' Motion to Adopt (filed October 4, 2000).

All Defendants have joined in all of the motions listed above. The court has reviewed the motions, the Government's Consolidated Response (filed October 11, 2000), the extensive exhibits, the entire case file, the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing held November 1 and 2, 2000, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.

At the hearing held November 1 and 2, 2000, Defendants narrowed the arguments raised in their written motions. Defendants contend that the evidence obtained from 99-WT-3-Z, 99-WT-4-Z, and 99-WT-6-Z must be suppressed because the Affidavits in support of the Applications for interception of electronic communications failed to satisfy the "necessity" requirement set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c).1 In addition, Defendant Licon argues that the Affidavits in support of the Applications for interception of electronic communications failed to establish probable cause to believe that the interception of communications would produce evidence of his involvement in the criminal offenses outlined in the Applications.

I. The Challenged Wiretaps
1. 99-WT-3-Z

The first wiretap Order, issued April 6, 1999, authorized interception of communications from cellular telephone number (303) 810-5990, assigned Electronic Serial Number ("ESN") 25301332699 and purchased from AT & T Wireless by the FBI for use as an undercover phone in this investigation. The subject cellular telephone was subscribed to by the FBI in the name of Curt Ramsey at an undercover address in Denver, Colorado, and was in the possession of and utilized by Raul Atayde. The named targets and interceptees in the first wiretap Order were "members of the Manuel Carrillo drug distribution organization, including but not limited to ... Raul Atayde, Andres Luna, Manuel Carrillo, Hector Gonzalez, Augustine Olivas, Hilda Gutierrez, Omar Nunez, Emiliano Licon, and others yet unknown." (Government's Exhibit 3 ¶ A). The first wiretap expired on May 5, 1999. (See Government's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3).

2. 99-WT-4-Z

The second wiretap Order, also issued April 6, 1999, authorized interception of communications from a digital display paging device assigned telephone number (303) 836-6202 and purchased from Communications Unlimited by the FBI for use as an undercover pager in this investigation. The subject pager was subscribed to by Curt Ramsey of the FBI at an undercover address in Denver, Colorado. As of March 12, 1999, the subject pager was in the possession of and utilized by Raul Atayde. On or about April 6, 1999, when 99-WT-3-Z commenced, the subject pager was transferred to the possession of Manuel Carrillo. The named targets and interceptees in the second wiretap Order were Raul Atayde, Andres Luna, Manuel Carrillo, Hector Gonzalez, Augustine Olivas, Hilda Gutierrez, Omar Nunez, Emiliano Licon, and others yet unknown. (Government's Exhibit 5 ¶ A). The second wiretap also expired on May 5, 1999. (See Government's Exhibits 1, 4, and 5).

3. 99-WT-6-Z

The third wiretap Order, issued May 18, 1999, approximately two weeks after the first two wiretaps expired, authorized interception of communications from cellular telephone number (303) 898-3004 bearing ESN 25301438370. The subject cellular telephone was subscribed to by Curt Ramsey of the FBI at an undercover address in Denver, Colorado, and was in the possession of and utilized by Manuel Carrillo. The named targets and interceptees in the third wiretap Order were "members of the Manuel Carrillo drug distribution organization, including but not limited to" Raul Atayde, Andres Jaquin Luna III, Manuel Guillermo Carrillo, Hector Hinojosa Gonzalez, Hilda Gutierrez, Omar Nunez, Emiliano Zapata Licon, Angel LNU, Raul Garcia, Tomas Guerra, Oscar Pacheco-Vasquez, Oscar LNU, Alejandro Hernandez, Jose Juan Melendez, Chilas LNU, Augustine Olivas, Xavier Davis, and others yet unknown. (Government's Exhibit 9 ¶ A). The third wiretap expired on June 15, 1999. (See Government's Exhibits 7, 8, and 9).

II. The Investigation

According to the Affidavits submitted in support of the three wiretap Applications, affiant Denver Police Officer/F.B.I. Special Federal Officer Jamie D. Akens began his participation in the investigation of the charged offenses in January of 1997. The investigation in this case and related Criminal Action Nos. 99-CR-298-S and 99-CR-299-S spanned almost three years.

Through confidential sources, Officer Akens learned that Manuel Carrillo was the founder and leader of a violent Denver street gang known as the Mexican Criminal Mafia Sureno 13 ("MCM SUR 13") and that Carrillo was personally distributing and using others to distribute large quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine in the Denver metropolitan area. Officer Akens learned that Andres Luna and Hector Gonzalez were members of the MCM SUR 13 and closely assisted Carrillo in the drug distribution business. The investigation focused on a conspiracy by members and associates of the Mexican Criminal Mafia to possess and distribute cocaine, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine.

The investigation revealed that Carrillo was in the middle of a drug distribution conspiracy that lasted from January 1997 until Carrillo went to jail in August 1999. The conspirators were members or associates of the Mexican Criminal Mafia and either supplied drugs to, purchased drugs from, or worked directly with Carrillo in the drug organization. The investigation showed that Carrillo obtained cocaine, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine from several sources, including but not limited to Hector Gonzalez, Jose Manuel Aguilar Perez, Jose Juan Melendez, and Eduardo Morales. Carrillo then distributed these drugs to other distributors, many of whom were members of the Mexican Criminal Mafia, including Raul Atayde, Andres Luna, Juan Castorena, Oscar Pacheco-Vasquez, and Augustine Olivas. These individuals then further distributed the drugs. Members of the drug organization acted as Carrillo's assistants by, inter alia, locating customers to purchase drugs, delivering drugs to customers, collecting money from drug sales, weighing and storing drugs at their homes and the homes of their relatives and girlfriends, serving as protection for Carrillo during drug transactions, and obtaining and carrying weapons for use...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • People v. Roberts
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 15, 2010
    ...resorting to wiretapping." ' " ( Leon, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 395, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 524, 150 P.3d 207, quoting United States v. Carrillo (D.Colo.2000) 123 F.Supp.2d 1223, 1245.) The overall burden on the government in meeting the necessity requirement for issuance of a wiretap warrant is not......
  • United States v. Madrid
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • September 25, 2012
    ...18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) be shown as to all named interceptees. We do not agree with this argument.”); see also United States v. Carrillo, 123 F.Supp.2d 1223, 1247 (D.Colo.2000), appeal dismissed,43 Fed.Appx. 226 (10th Cir.2002); United States v. Barrios, 994 F.Supp. 1257, 1263 (D.Colo.1998).......
  • U.S. v. Small
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • October 22, 2002
    ...or different steps in their investigation does not undermine the necessity finding in this case. Carneiro, 861 F.2d at 1178; Carrillo, 123 F.Supp.2d at 1245. I agree with other courts that have given these "[a]fter-the-fact suggestions by defense attorneys" little weight in determining stat......
  • United States v. Cota
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • August 7, 2013
    ...or are too dangerous is "not great . . . . Substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required." United States v. Carrillo, 123 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1233 (D. Colo. 2000). The validity of the wiretap authorization is reviewed based on the information that was before the issuing judg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Commercializing patents.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 2, January 2010
    • January 1, 2010
    ...INNOVATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION], available at http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/9539.pdf. (39.) Compare United States v. Carrillo, 123 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1242 (D. Colo. 2000) ("Also in April of 1999, when Atayde called for a taxi, a female dispatcher for the Metro Cab Company alerted him that......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT