United States v. James
| Decision Date | 11 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 18-21-SDD-RLB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TRAVIS R. JAMES, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Suppress Wiretap Interceptions filed by Defendant Michael Nelson ("Nelson")1 and Defendant Troy James ("James").2 These motions were adopted by co-Defendants Travis R. James, Joshua J. Mansion ("Mansion"), and Harris Hampton, III ("Hampton").3 The Government has filed an Opposition4 to these motions. For the following reasons, the motions are DENIED.
This criminal action arises out of an Indictment charging fifteen Defendants in a drug conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute illegal narcotics between around January 2015 and continuing until around January 2018 in the Middle District of Louisiana and elsewhere.5 As a result of an ongoing investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") and local law enforcement agencies into alleged narcotics trafficking by these Defendants, the Government applied to intercept wire and electronic communications occurring over several cellular telephones, beginning in March2017, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2516.6 On March 27, 2017, then-Chief Judge Brian Jackson approved the Government's application to intercept wiretap and electronic communications occurring over cellular phone number (225) 202-9235, referred to as TARGET TELEPHONE, used by James Christian Hull ("Hull").7 On April 25, 2017, Judge James Brady granted the Government's request for a thirty-day extension to intercept communications used by Hull over TARGET TELEPHONE 1, which was the same phone number and phone associated with TARGET TELEPHONE.8 In this extension request, the Government advised the Court that the Confidential Source ("CS") upon which the Government had relied in its first application had become unreliable.
The Government notes that neither the application nor the extension request identified Nelson, Travis James, Troy James, Hampton, Mansion, or Kim Murphy ("Murphy") as targets of the investigation. Further, during the wiretap of TARGET TELEPHONE/TARGET TELEPHONE 1, the Government claims that federal law enforcement did not capture any communications to or from Nelson, Travis James, Troy James, Hampton, Mansion, or Murphy.9
On April 20, 2017, Chief Judge Jackson granted a second application by the Government to intercept wiretap and electronic communications occurring over TARGET TELEPHONE 2 and TARGET TELEPHONE 3 used by Byron A. Lawson.10 This application did not identify Nelson, Travis James, Hampton, Mansion, or Murphy astargets; however, during this time period, the Government intercepted communications between Nelson and Travis James over TARGET TELEPHONE 3.
On May 6, 2017, Judge Brady granted the Government's application to intercept wiretap and electronic communications occurring over TARGET TELEPHONE 4 and TARGET TELEPHONE 5 for a thirty-day period.11 The Order authorizing the interceptions pursuant to this application did identify Travis James and Troy James, a/k/a "Big Bro Troy," among others, as targets. On May 6, 2017, Judge Brady approved a thirty-day extension request to continue intercepting communications occurring over TARGET TELEPHONES 4 and 5.12 The Order authorizing these interceptions identified Travis James, Troy James, Hampton, Nelson, and Mansion as targets, and law enforcement intercepted their communications, as well as Murphy's, occurring over TARGET TELEPHONES 4 and 5.
On May 27, 2017, Judge Brady granted the Government's application to intercept wiretap and electronic communications occurring over TARGET TELEPHONE 6, used by Travis James. The application and Order authorizing the interceptions identified Travis James, Troy James, and Hampton as targets.13
Nelson has moved to suppress the wiretap interceptions in this case. Nelson challenges the Government's interception of communications occurring over TARGET TELEPHONE/TARGET TELEPHONE 1 for lack of probable cause on the basis that the Government's first application was based on information from a confidential source laterfound to be unreliable. Nelson also contends that the Government's applications were defective because it failed to follow its statutory duty to consider alternative, traditional investigative techniques to achieve the objectives of this investigation. Thus, because Nelson contends the communications intercepted over TARGET TELEPHONES 3, 4, and 5 are fruits of the unconstitutional and unlawful interception that occurred over TARGET TELEPHONE/TARGET TELEPHONE 1, all intercepted communications should be suppressed.
The motion to suppress by Troy James asserts these same arguments; however, Troy James contends he has standing to challenge the interception occurring over TARGET TELEPHONE 1. Troy James contends that the information gained from the unlawful wiretap of TARGET TELEPHONE 1, based on an unreliable confidential informant, led to the authorization to intercept the communications occurring over TARGET TELEPHONES 4, 5, and 6, and these communications should be suppressed as unlawful fruits of the poisonous tree. Troy James also argues that the application failed to identify the individual operating as "Big Bro Troy"; thus, there was no probable cause to link him to "Big Bro Troy."14
The Government opposes the Motions to Suppress, arguing that the Defendants lack standing to challenge the application for TARGET TELEPHONE/TARGET TELEPHONE 1 as they were not targets of this investigation, and no communications intercepted pursuant to this application were theirs; thus, they cannot suppress the subsequent wiretaps under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The Government alsocontends that the supporting affidavit provided sufficient probable cause to believe that drug trafficking conversations were occurring over TARGET TELEPHONE/TARGET TELEPHONE 1 because, notwithstanding the fact that CS was later found to be unreliable, the affidavit was based on information provided by CS that was corroborated on several occasions by law enforcement. Addressing Troy James' argument that he was not sufficiently linked to the name "Big Bro Troy," the Government cites Supreme Court jurisprudence and argues that the failure to identify a target in a wiretap application, where probable causes exists to do so, does not warrant suppression.15 The Government further argues that it satisfied the necessity requirement in seeking the wiretap application. Finally, the Government maintains that the agents relied in good faith on the sufficiency of the wiretap warrant; thus, the good faith exception would apply to the exclusionary rule in this case.
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 196816 ("Title III"), governs the interception of wire, oral and electronic communications by the government and private parties. Title III broadly prohibits all wiretapping and electronic surveillance conducted by persons other than law enforcement officials engaged in the investigation of specified crimes after obtaining a court order.17
Section 2518(10)(a) of Title III states that any "aggrieved person" may move to suppress the contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted pursuant to Title III,or any fruits derived therefrom, on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted or was not made in conformity with the authorizing order.18 An "aggrieved person" for Title III purposes is one who is either (1) a party to any intercepted communication, or (2) a person against whom the interception was directed.19
Although Title III contains this express standing provision, courts have long recognized that the intent of Congress was to apply the existing law of Fourth Amendment standing to wiretap cases.20 Relying on this Congressional intent, courts have continued to construe Title III standing in accordance with standing requirements applied to suppression claims under the Fourth Amendment.21 Thus, one does not become an "aggrieved person" under Title III solely by the introduction of damaging evidence.22
Nelson, a subject of interceptions of TARGET TELEPHONES 3 and 4, contends he has standing as an "aggrieved person" because 23
Troy James, a subject of interceptions of TARGET TELEPHONES 4, 5 and 6, argues essentially the same as Nelson with regard to standing: the phone numberidentified by the Government attributed to Troy James was identified "as a direct result of the interceptions beginning on March 27, 2017, of the incoming and outgoing calls to Telephones #4, #5, and #6, thus, Troy James has standing to challenge all the interceptions authorizations in this matter."24
Both Nelson and Troy James rely on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Giordano, wherein the Court held that, because the original interceptions failed to comply with the law, suppression of all later fruits of the poisonous tree was required.25 However, as the Government points out, the facts of Giordano are distinguishable from those presented herein. In Giordano, the defendant was the target of the original wiretap order that was ultimately held unlawful.
The Court finds that the facts of this case are similar to those set forth in United States v. Scasino, wherein defendants sought to suppress Title III recordings that were the undisputed fruits of a prior illegal wiretap.26 The Fifth Circuit concluded that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the prior wiretap primarily because they were not directly implicated by the wiretap.27 The Scasino court adopted the standard set forth by the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Gibson,...
To continue reading
Request your trial