United States v. Colon

Decision Date17 November 2014
Docket NumberNo. 3:14–cr–00085 JAM.,3:14–cr–00085 JAM.
Citation71 F.Supp.3d 269
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, v. Carlos COLON, et al.

Vanessa Richards, U.S. Attorney's Office, Bridgeport, CT, for United States of America.

Tracy Hayes, Federal Public Defender's Office, Hartford, CT, for Carlos Colon, et al.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY (Doc. # 36) AND TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT (Doc. # 37)

JEFFREY ALKER MEYER, District Judge.

This case involves seven criminal defendants who were set up by undercover law enforcement agents to rob a fictional drug “stash house” in Connecticut. They fell victim to a ruse that federal law enforcement agents have deployed with remarkable success against countless suspects nationwide. All seven defendants—some of them armed—gathered one day last April at a parking lot somewhere in Stamford, expecting that they would momentarily proceed to a nearby stash house to rob and help themselves to 15 kilograms or more of lightly guarded cocaine. Instead, a flood of law enforcement agents swept in to arrest them. Each of the defendants now stands charged with conspiracies to engage in robbery, drug trafficking, and related weapons offenses. For their plans to rob a house and cocaine that never existed, each of the defendants likely faces at least 15 years of mandatory minimum imprisonment if convicted on these charges.

Defendants jointly move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the stash-house sting operation that was launched against them amounted to outrageous government conduct in violation of their constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause. Relatedly, defendants contend that they were targeted on account of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and they seek discovery to support their claim of selective enforcement and prosecution. Although defendants raise important questions about stash-house sting operations, I conclude that defendants' arguments are all without merit under well-established law of the Supreme Court and Second Circuit. Accordingly, for reasons set forth below, I deny their motions to dismiss and for discovery.

Background

In late March 2014, agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) initiated this stash-house sting operation. The focus of the ATF's efforts was on defendants Carlos (Joel) Colon and Carlos (Camby) Colon, both of whom had previously been the subjects of undercover controlled buys of cocaine and a sawed-off-stock rifle. Doc. # 58 at 2–3 & n. 2 (description with accompanying references to Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reports detailing undercover purchases in 2011, along with statements by Camby Colon to a DEA informant in November 2013 about his ability to deal in multiple-kilogram quantities of cocaine).

On March 24, 2014, ATF agents met with a confidential informant (CI–1) who had previously been working with law enforcement agents in Bridgeport from two multi-jurisdictional drug and gang task forces. CI–1 told the agents about multiple cocaine purchases he had made over the past 18 months at the Colon brothers' auto-detailing business in Bridgeport. Doc. # 58, Exh. A; Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing of Sept. 29, 2014 (Sept. 29 Tr.) at 44 (CI–1 testimony). Although CI–1 had bought cocaine from Joel Colon, he thought that Camby Colon was in charge; Joel Colon had recently told him about a shipment of two kilograms of cocaine, and he believed that the Colon brothers had family in Puerto Rico that provided them with kilogram-quantities of cocaine to sell. Doc. # 58, Exh. A.

Most importantly for present purposes, CI–1 also described to agents an encounter he had had with Joel Colon several months earlier, in which Joel Colon had asked CI–1 if he knew of any narcotics dealers that could be robbed and stated that, if CI–1 had problems with any narcotics dealers, Joel could arrange a robbery. Doc. # 58, Exh. A; Sept. 29 Tr. at 24–26. CI–1 had previously relayed the substance of this encounter with Joel Colon to his FBI “handler,” as corroborated by a contemporaneous FBI report of early December 2013.1

Soon after the meeting with CI–1, law enforcement set out to corroborate his claim that the Colon brothers engaged in narcotics dealings. On March 27, 2014, CI–1 and a second confidential informant (CI–2) bought an ounce of cocaine from Joel Colon at the Colon brothers' auto shop in a transaction that was secretly video recorded. Doc. # 58 at 3–4. Several days later, CI–1 and CI–2 attempted, on April 1, to buy more cocaine from the Colon brothers, but were told that the product had not yet arrived. Id. at 4.

CI–2 returned again to the auto shop on April 3, and he asked Joel Colon whether he knew anyone who might do a robbery—specifically, whether he “kn[ew] anybody that, like, hit licks and shit?” Doc. # 58, Exh. L–1 at 1:17–1:42 (video). Joel did not seem to understand what CI–2 was saying at first, but then when Camby joined the discussion, CI–2 said he was referring to “stick up kids,” slang for people who commit robberies with weapons. Id. at 2:00–2:05. CI–2 said that he was acting on behalf of his “Cuban buddy” (who in reality was an ATF undercover agent who would be interposed in future dealings), and that CI–1 had “turned me on to y'all” to ask about this. Id. at 2:14–2:30. Joel Colon said that he would let CI–2 know. Id. at 2:46–3:01.

The conversation turned back to drug dealing, and Joel said that he could obtain “one, two, three bricks” (kilograms) and would provide 300 to 500 grams of cocaine on credit. Id. at 6:16–7:30. Referring to CI–1 (who was not there), Joel said that he and CI–1 “got the trust.” Id. at 6:46–6:56.

Soon enough, the conversation turned back to planning a robbery. When Joel asked if the plan would involve cash, CI–2 said he did not know but would have Joel meet his Cuban friend. Joel then stated: “I got my people, I just fuckin' talk to them and, like, they do whatever they got to do.” Doc. # 58, Exh. L–2 at 0:08–0:14. And soon he added that “I just call two, three of my [friends] from the islands. They come over here, they do whatever they go back. Nobody know what they do, who they are. You just gotta let me know what, what, exactly, you need to get done.” Id. at 0:29–0:54. CI–2 offered to have Joel meet his Cuban associate, and Joel said he could meet “whenever you ready, like tomorrow.” Id. at 0:55–1:05.

CI–2 returned the next day to the auto shop with his Cuban friend, who in fact was an ATF undercover agent. The agent explained that he was a courier for a Cuban trafficking organization and was tasked with picking up one or two kilograms of cocaine from houses located off of 1–95 in Connecticut; he would not learn the specific address of a stash house until a telephone call arrived on the day of each pick-up. He further explained that, whenever he did these pickups, he saw an additional 15 kilograms of cocaine at the stash house and that there were always two men present at the house, one of whom was armed.

When Joel questioned the agent about the number of kilograms of cocaine at the stash house, the agent confirmed there would be 15 kilograms. After explaining more about the pickup routine, the agent asked, “How does it sound?” Doc. # 58, Exh. N at 5. Joel replied, “It sounds good.” Id. at 6.

They agreed that the stolen cocaine would be split, with one half for the Colon brothers and their “island” associates, and one-half for the agent and CI–2. After more discussion of the details with the agent, Joel Colon said that “it can be done” and that he would “call the guys” and “get someone who no one knows, who are not from here....” Id. at 7.

Camby Colon also asked questions about who would be armed at the stash house and advised that “who we are going to send, if they see that a weapon is drawn they are going to clean them out quickly,” and that his associates “have done things around” and “know what they are doing,” because the Colon brothers “use them whenever they owe us money ... or big case or something like if someone fucked us up, and ... was trying to screw with us, and it has to be resolved then we use those guys.” Id. at 8–9.

On April 7, the Colon brothers again met with CI–2 and the ATF undercover agent at the auto shop. The agent advised that he would have another pick-up on Friday, April 11. He confirmed again that there would be at least 15 kilograms of cocaine. The agent also asked to meet with the crew that was going to do the robbery, and Camby said that he would make the crew available.

On April 9, the group met yet again at the Colon brothers' auto shop. The agent confirmed that the pickup would take place on April 11, when he would need to drive down to Stamford and wait for a call to provide him the address of the stash house. Defendant Hiram Mojica walked into the room and introduced himself as “Gringo.” The agent explained the robbery to Mojica, answering Mojica's questions about the possibility of encountering additional individuals and the proximity of police. Mojica mentioned the possibility of entering with a silencer and shooting the first individual in the thigh. Joel Colon said that the guards at the stash house “aren't stupid” and would save their lives rather than save the cocaine. Joel Colon advised the agent that he would meet the remaining crew the next day.

On April 10, the agent and CI–2 returned to the auto shop, and they were introduced to defendants Humberto Soto and Markus Mendez. The agent explained the robbery plan and answered questions. Mendez wanted information about the location of the house, the individuals in the house, and the possibility of guns. Soto made numerous comments indicating that this would not be his first robbery and that he would shoot anyone who pulled out a weapon. He wanted to obtain a pump action shotgun (a “spreader”) for the robbery, but stated that [e]ven if nobody got a gun on, I don't give a fuck, I'll still walk in, I got hands.... I gots to tape those...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • United States v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 12, 2018
    ...that they were not targeted on the basis of any alleged discriminatory policy or practice of the DEA."); United States v. Colon , 71 F.Supp.3d 269, 277, 282–83 (D. Conn. 2014) (rejecting equal protection claim of defendants in phony stash house case because "there is no evidence that the go......
  • United States v. Rich
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • February 2, 2015
    ...government conduct in the investigatory context defies precise verbal formulation.” United States v. Colon, 71 F.Supp.3d 269, 275, No. 3:14–CR–00085 (JAM), 2014 WL 6390566, at *5 (D.Conn. Nov. 17, 2014). “The Second Circuit has defined it through examples of what it is and what it is not.” ......
  • United States v. Laneham
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • October 25, 2017
    ...The Court is not eager to infer racial bias based on whom a targeted individual chooses to recruit. See United States v. Colon, 71 F. Supp. 3d 269, 283 (D. Conn. 2014)(Meyer, J.)("[T]here is no evidence that the government did anything to select any of the seven defendants except for the tw......
  • United States v. Wrobel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • July 21, 2017
    ...(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2015); United States v. Viera, No. 14 CR. 83 ER, 2015 WL 3833797 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2015); United States v. Colon, 71 F. Supp. 3d 269 (D. Conn. 2014); United States v. Occhipinti, No. 91 CR. 0168 (CBM), 1991 WL 84557 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 1991). Marcus at no time requested any......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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