United States v. Hyde
| Decision Date | 14 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO.: 2:19-cr-5 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CHARLES HYDE |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Doc. 252. The Government filed a Response. Doc. 254. I conducted a hearing on this Motion on February 10, 2020, at which Defendant, Defendant's counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Jenna Solari ("AUSA Solari"), and Task Force Agent Shawn Fields appeared. After review of the parties' written and oral arguments and based on the relevant case law, I RECOMMEND the Court DENY Defendant's Motion.
Defendant has been indicted for: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Doc. 257. These charges stem from allegations that Defendant and others, from at least July 2016 until December 9, 2018, knowingly conspired to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and that, on May 3, 2018, Defendant also possessed with intent to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana and possessed prohibited firearms and ammunition. Id.
Defendant moves to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant of his residence and person on May 3, 2018. Docs. 252, 281. Defendant raises various challenges to the sufficiency of the warrant application and the execution of the search. Specifically, Defendant contends the application for the search warrant lacked probable cause under the totality of the circumstances. According to Defendant, there is a discrepancy between the date in the search warrant application and the authorized search, the description of the items to be seized is antiquated and does not contain all items seized, and the confidential informant's reliability was not set forth in the affidavit. Defendant also objects to the "no knock" provision contained in the search warrant.
At the February 10, 2020 hearing, the Government called Liberty County Sheriff's Officer Shawn Fields ("TFA Fields") to testify. Doc. 264. TFA Fields was a task force agent with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation at the time the search warrant was executed on May 3, 2018. TFA Fields is now a task force officer with the Drug Enforcement Agency and has over 20 years' law enforcement experience.
TFA Fields testified about the investigation of Defendant and the search of Defendant's residence. TFA Fields described a traffic stop of confidential informant ("CI") that occurred a "couple weeks" before May 3, 2018. The CI was questioned during the stop and informed law enforcement that Defendant was involved in drug trafficking. TFA Fields stated that Liberty County law enforcement officers conducted surveillance on Defendant's residence between thetraffic stop and May 3, 2018, and during that surveillance observed movements consistent with drug trafficking. On May 3, 2018, TFA Fields met with the CI and arranged for the CI to make a controlled buy of methamphetamine from Defendant that same day.
During the May 3, 2018 controlled buy, TFA Fields used audio and video recording equipment to monitor the transaction in real time and to create a recording of the transaction. Ultimately, the CI successfully purchased a quantity of methamphetamine from Defendant, which TFA Fields verified by reviewing the recordings and interviewing and searching the CI after the transaction. TFA Fields testified Defendant could be heard on the audio portion of the recordings discussing having six kilograms of methamphetamine and possessing weapons for safety. Based on the recordings and the controlled buy, TFA Fields wanted to secure a search warrant for Defendant's residence, person, and vehicle, because, in part, he felt it was important to stop such a large amount of methamphetamine from making it into the community.
Liberty County Magistrate Judge Bomar came to the task force's office on May 3, 2018, the date the warrant was issued. Judge Bomar was present while Detective Gallob, who was present during the controlled-buy surveillance, typed the search warrant application. At the same time, TFA Fields typed the operation plan. TFA Fields personally described the controlled buy that occurred earlier that day to Judge Bomar, described other information officers obtained from their investigation, and explained why officers wanted to obtain a search warrant the same day. TFA Fields testified that Judge Bomar was sitting in the captain's office down the hall from where he and Detective Gallob were and had come to the office specifically to sign the search warrant. Judge Bomar signed the warrant at 9:24 p.m. on May 3, 2018, doc. 254-1 at 3, 4-7, and officers executed the warrant right after Judge Bomar signed it.
Upon the officers' arrival at Defendant's residence at 207 Ed Powers Boulevard in Hinesville, Georgia, Defendant was holding a firearm. Ultimately, an officer shot Defendant in the hand, knocking the gun out of Defendant's hand. Defendant was given medical attention at the scene and then taken to a local hospital. Because of the shooting, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation took over the scene to investigate. The scene was secured and monitored by GBI officers for the remainder of the evening and part of the next day. No items were taken from Defendant's residence by Liberty County officers on the night of May 3, 2018. Liberty County law enforcement personnel came back to Defendant's house the next day, May 4, 2018, and searched the residence. Thus, Liberty County officers initially sought to execute the search warrant on May 3, 2018, but because the officers discharged a firearm during that incident and Defendant was injured, the operation was curtailed, and the Liberty County officers did not complete the search until May 4, 2018. During the search on May 4, officers seized the following items: body armor; one ski mask; United States currency; one cellular phone; ammunition; firearm parts; two firearms; several bags containing suspected marijuana; several bags containing suspected methamphetamine; and one digital scale.1 Doc. 254-2. Defendant seeks to suppress these items.
TFA Fields stated he discovered on May 29, 2018—approximately three weeks after execution of the warrant—that the search warrant affidavit incorrectly stated the controlled buy at Defendant's residence occurred on April 3, 2017, as opposed to May 3, 2018. Upon realizingthe error, TFA Fields created an addendum to the search warrant in which he corrected the date that should have been included in the affidavit and addressed a few other discrepancies, including errors regarding the time due to the drafting officer's mistakes regarding the use of military time. Doc. 254-1. TFA Fields took the addendum to Judge Bomar on May 29, 2018, and Judge Bomar executed the addendum on the same date. Id. at 8. TFA Fields testified during the hearing that he provided Agent Gallob with the information contained in the original affidavit, and they were "kind of" "tag teaming" to write the application. TFA Fields also stated it was possible Agent Gallob utilized another, older search warrant application to prepare the affidavit for the search warrant for Defendant's residence, automobile, and person.
In his initial Motion to Suppress (as argued at the February 10, 2020 hearing), Defendant raises essentially four grounds for the suppression of evidence seized during the search. Doc. 252. First, Defendant points out that Agent Fields' original affidavit presented in support of the warrant stated the controlled by the CI occurred on April 3, 2017, but the affidavit and warrant were signed on May 3, 2018. Id. at 1. Second, Defendant contends the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant "is unconstitutionally vague[,]" as it contains no probable cause to support a search for many of the items listed in the warrant, such as phone records and computer hardware and software. Id. at 1-2. Defendant further contends the affidavit and warrant did not list firearms or specify the type of narcotics to be searched for but included floppy disks and other antiquated technology. Id. at 2. Third, Defendant alleges the veracity of the confidential informant was not corroborated sufficiently. Id. Fourth, Defendant alleges the no-knock provision is a one-sentence justification lacking sufficient evidence to establish "reasonablegrounds to believe that the giving of verbal notice would greatly increase the officers' peril and/or lead to the immediate destruction of evidence." Id.
In response, the Government states the language in the affidavit and warrant to which Defendant objects (i.e., language concerning floppy disks, telephone answering machines, etc.), even if antiquated, "is tantamount to a request for 'records, in any form,' relating to the commission of a specified offense." Doc. 254 at 5. Even if the language were found to be overbroad, the Government submits the items that were actually seized—controlled substances, packaging materials, a digital scale, money, body armor, firearms and ammunition, and cellular telephones—were not improperly seized under the warrant. Id. at 6. The Government additionally argues that, even if the warrant is not supported by probable cause in the affidavit based on the inadvertently erroneous date, the good-faith exception supports the officers' reliance upon the warrant. Id. at 6-7. Finally, the Government...
To continue reading
Request your trial