U.S. v. Merton, CR. 01-CR-311-D.

CourtU.S. District Court — District of Colorado
Writing for the CourtDaniel
CitationU.S. v. Merton, 274 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. Colo. 2003)
Decision Date31 July 2003
Docket NumberNo. CR. 01-CR-358-D.,No. CR. 01-CR-318-D.,No. CR. 01-CR-359-D.,No. CR. 01-CR-350-D.,No. CR. 01-CR-320-D.,No. CR. 01-CA-319-D.,No. CR. 01-CR-311-D.,CR. 01-CR-311-D.,CR. 01-CR-318-D.,CR. 01-CA-319-D.,CR. 01-CR-320-D.,CR. 01-CR-350-D.,CR. 01-CR-358-D.,CR. 01-CR-359-D.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Mark B. MERTON, a/k/a Mark B. Williams, Alexander S. Rector, and Will Lancaster, Defendants United States of America, Plaintiff, v. John D. Sposit, Nathan J. Kern, and David Login, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. John D. Sposit, Copy W. Hynes, Megan M. Schey, Reynaldo R. Mendoza, Shawn Sweeney, Nathan J. Kern, Shawn Hartnett, Justin C. Lynes, Ryan J. Krueger, Daniel McDermott, Frank E. Edmonds, Liana R. Parisi, a/k/a Liana Wettlaufer, Nathan W. Burress, Lisa Rainey, and Tony Grant, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Mark B. Merton, a/k/a Mark B. Williams, Vladislav Radosavljevic, Elijah D. Williams, Chad D. Kelly, Juan Jose Ceja-Ponce, a/k/a "Orlando," Jason M. Price, Peter Tiamzon, Stanley Corey Jackson, Jimmy D. Graham, Bradley A. Benham, Daniel J. Chum, Douglas D. Fritchel, Cory W. Hynes, Loretta Lim, Kerbin G. Sharp, Christine M. Sloan, Candi Jean Vastlik, Donovan Garcia, Cory Rogers and Toby Khamvongsa, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jason M. Price, David Price, Chad Vice, Johnny Keiser and David Strauss, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Edward J. Gleason, Defendant. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Juan Jose Ceja-Ponce and Braulio Medina-Garcia, Defendants.

Joseph T. Urbaniak, Jr., United States Attorney's Office, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.

Robert Seldis Berger, Robert S. Berger, P.C., Denver, CO, Patrick McGinnis, Marc Milavitz, The Alternative Law Office of Marc Milavitz, Boulder, CO, for Defendants.

ORDER

DANIEL, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained through twelve separate wiretaps and extensions thereto authorized by Senior United States District Judges Zita L. Weinshienk and John L. Kane, Jr. The Court held evidentiary hearings on these motions on April 30, May 1, 29 and 30, 2002. Having now carefully considered and evaluated the wiretap pleadings (Applications, Affidavits and Orders), Defendants' motions, the Government's responses, the testimony and evidence adduced, oral arguments, and the applicable law, it is Ordered, for the reasons set forth below, that Defendants' motions are DENIED.1

I. BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION

The investigation which ultimately led to the wiretaps at issue in this case began in August 2000 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with the arrest of Jeremy Dieffenbach. Dieffenbach provided information which led to the identification of John Sposit ("Sposit") as a major supplier of 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("MDMA") (commonly referred to as "Ecstasy") for distributors throughout Colorado. Based on that information, after months of collecting additional evidence against Sposit, investigators applied for and received authorization to conduct electronic surveillance of Sposit's cellular telephone.

II. WIRETAPS
A. FIRST WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONE ONE, 01-WT-01-Z (ISSUED FEBRUARY 14, 2001)

This First Wiretap order authorized the interception of communications from cellular telephone number (303) 844-8142, subscribed to Tom Snyder, 8220 W. Eastman Place, Denver, Colorado ("First Wiretap"). That cellular telephone was allegedly in the possession of and utilized by John Sposit. The named interceptees in the First Wiretap were John Sposit, Nathan Kern, Reynaldo Mendoza, Luis Hurtado, John Gerak, Megan Schey, Cory Hynes, Tony Stoker, Shawn Hartnett, Shawn Sweeney, Nathan Burress, and Lisa Twoeagles. The wiretap terminated on March 16, 2001. An extension was granted on March 20, 2001, and added Ryan Krueger, Justin Lynes, Liana Parisi, and Caine Knapp to the list of named interceptees. A final extension was granted on April 18, 2001, and added John Georges, Elijah D. Williams, Brad Benham, Tyler Fader, Frank Edmonds, Angel LNU (last name unknown), Pamela LNU, and Mo LNU to the list of named interceptees.

B. SECOND WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONE Two, 01-WT-02-K (ISSUED MARCH 1, 2001)

The Second Wiretap order authorized the interception of communications from cellular telephone number (720) 220-8700, subscribed to Cristin Irwin, 8196 W. Eastman Place, Lakewood, Colorado ("Second Wiretap"). That cellular telephone was allegedly in the possession of and utilized by John Sposit. The named interceptees included John Sposit, Nathan Kern, Reynaldo Mendoza, Luis Hurtado, John Gerak, Megan Schey, Cory Hynes, Tony Stoker, Shawn Hartnett, Shawn Sweeney, Nathan Burress, and Lisa Twoeagles. The second wiretap terminated on March 31, 2001.

C. THIRD WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONES THREE AND FOUR, 01-WT-04-Z (ISSUED MARCH 23, 2001)

The Third Wiretap order authorized the interception of communications from: (1) cellular telephone number (303) 249-1323, subscribed to Ben Coleman, P.O. Box 97061, Redmond, Washington; and (2) cellular telephone number (720) 217-6919, subscribed to Cory Hynes, P.O. Box 22614, Denver, Colorado (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Third Wiretap"). Both cellular telephones were allegedly in the possession of and utilized by Cory Hynes. The named interceptees in the Third Wiretap were John Sposit, Nathan Kern, Reynaldo Mendoza, Luis Hurtado, John Gerak, Megan Schey, Cory Hynes, Tony Stoker, Shawn Hartnett, Shawn Sweeney, Nathan Burress, Lisa Twoeagles, Ryan Krueger, Justin Lynes, Liana Parisi, Caine Knapp, and John Georges. The Third Wiretap terminated on April 21, 2001.

D. FOURTH WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONE FIVE, 01-WT-09-Z (ISSUED APRIL 13, 2001)

The Fourth Wiretap order authorized the interception of communications from cellular telephone number (303) 523-9536, subscribed to Yer Yang, 3641 W. 88th Way, Westminster, Colorado, and allegedly in the possession of and utilized by Mark Williams. The named interceptees were Mark Williams, John Sposit, Nathan Kern, Reynaldo Mendoza, Luis Hurtado, John Gerak, Megan Schey, Cory Hynes, Tony Stoker, Shawn Hartnett, Shawn Sweeney, Nathan Burress, Lisa Twoeagles, Ryan Krueger, Justin Lynes, Liana Parisi, Caine Knapp, John Georges, Elijah Williams, Brad Benham, Tyler Fader, Frank Edmonds, Angel LNU, Pamela LNU, and Mo LNU.

E. FIFTH WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONE SIX, 01-WT-11-Z (ISSUED MAY 18, 2001)

On May 18, 2001, Judge Weinsheink entered an order authorizing the interception of electronic communications from cellular telephone number (303) 921-2020, subscribed to Gina Madrid, 8350 E. Crescent Parkway, Suite 400, Englewood, Colorado ("Fifth Wiretap"). That cellular telephone was allegedly in the possession of and utilized by Mark Williams.2 The Fifth Wiretap commenced on May 22, 2001, and terminated on May 23, 2001.

F. SIXTH WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONE SEVEN, 01-WT-12-Z (ISSUED MAY 24, 2001)

On May 24, 2001, Judge Weinshienk authorized the interception of communications from cellular telephone number (303) 885-3168, subscribed to Jason Price, 4050 S. Holly Street, Englewood, Colorado ("Sixth Wiretap") and allegedly in the possession of and utilized by Jason Price.3 The interception of the Sixth Wiretap terminated on June 22, 2001.

G. SEVENTH WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONE EIGHT, 01-WT-15-Z (ISSUED JUNE 4, 2001)

On June 4, 2001, Judge Weinshienk authorized the interception of communications from cellular telephone number (303) 726-5300, subscribed to Gina Madrid, 8350 E. Crescent Parkway, Suite 400, Englewood, Colorado. That cellular telephone was allegedly in the possession of and utilized by Mark Williams.4 The interceptions of the Seventh Wiretap commenced on June 5, 2001, and terminated shortly thereafter.

H. EIGHTH WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONE NINE, 01-WT-17-Z (ISSUED JUNE 13, 2001)

The Eighth Wiretap authorized the interception of communications from cellular telephone number (720) 840-8090, subscribed to RG/MM, Inc., 612 Washington St., Suite 107, Denver, Colorado, which was allegedly in the possession of and utilized by Mark Williams.5 The interceptions on the Eighth Wiretap terminated on July 12, 2001, and an extension was granted on the same day.6 The extension of the Eighth Wiretap terminated on August 10, 2001.

I. NINTH WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONE TEN, 01-WT-18-Z (ISSUED JUNE 26, 2001; EXTENDED ON JULY 25, 2001)

The Ninth Wiretap order authorized the interception of communications from cellular telephone number (303) 347-1869, subscribed to Vladiflav Radosavljevic, 6498 W. Arbor Dr., Littleton, Colorado, which was allegedly in the possession of and utilized by Vladislav Radosavljevic.7 An extension for the Ninth Wiretap was granted on July 25, 2001. The named interceptees in the extension of the Ninth Wiretap were Vladislav Radosavljevic, Mark Williams, Corey Jackson, Stanislav Stamenkovic, Srdjan Josimov, Tihomir Josimov, Mario Marjanac, Dragan Kojic, and Djole LNU. The extension terminated on August 23, 2001.

J. TENTH WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONE ELEVEN, 01-WT-19-Z (ISSUED JULY 11, 2001)

The Tenth Wiretap order authorized the interception of communications from cellular telephone number (720) 244-6737, subscribed to Jason D. Holley, 2964 E. Floyd Dr., Denver, Colorado ("Tenth Wiretap"). That cellular telephone was allegedly in the possession of and utilized by Jason Price. The named interceptees in the Tenth Wiretap are Jason Price, Mark Williams, Tod Holley, Jim Dowd, Ed Gleason, Johnny Keiser, David Kole, Damon Newman, Julie Payne, David Price, John Studebaker, Chad Vice, Andre Walker, Cliff Houser, Quincy Bentley, Steve LNU, and Gonzo LNU. The Tenth Wiretap terminated on August 10, 2001.

K. ELEVENTH WIRETAP: SUBJECT TELEPHONE TWELVE, 01-WT-21-Z (ISSUED JULY 18, 2001)

The Eleventh Wiretap order authorized the interception of communications from cellular...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • United States v. Garrison
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • December 3, 2015
    ...the constitutional requirement of probable cause and the stricter statutory requirements found in Title III, United States v. Merton, 274 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1166 (D.Colo.2003). To obtain a Franks hearing, the defendant must make “a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowing......
  • U.S. v. Hall
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • March 12, 2009
    ...and then reviews for abuse of discretion the district court's conclusion that the wiretap was necessary. United States v. Merton, 274 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1167 (D.Colo.2003)(Daniel, J.)(applying Ramirez-Encarnacion at 1222 & n. 1). Based on the latter standard, the reviewing court thus confines ......
  • United States v. Hunter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 15, 2011
    ...from a previous affidavit; indeed, this is likely inevitable in an ongoing investigation. See, e.g., United States v. Merton, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1170 (D. Colo. 2003) (finding that extension affidavit containing some new information satisfied section 2518(1)(c) even though it "contain[ed]......
  • Sanchez v. Duffy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • November 15, 2018
    ...that the answer is "no." See Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 155–56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) ; United States v. Merton , 274 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1166 (D. Colo. 2003). Nonetheless, even if an official violates these rules, there remains an objective component to consider. The C......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Exalted technology: should CALEA be expanded to authorize Internet wiretapping?
    • United States
    • Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal Vol. 32 No. 1, March 2005
    • March 22, 2005
    ...436 U.S. 128, 128-29 (1978) (upholding wiretapping where 40% of intercepted conversations were relevant); United States v. Merton, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1196-97 (D. Colo. 2003) (denying motion to suppress evidence obtained from wiretap because agents made a good faith effort to minimize con......