United States v. Lambus
| Decision Date | 22 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | 15–CR–382 |
| Citation | 221 F.Supp.3d 319 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Kamel LAMBUS, Stanley Fuller, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
United States: Robert L. Capers, United States Attorney, E.D.N.Y., By: Michael P. Robotti, Lauren Howard Elbert, Marcia Maria Henry, 271 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201
Kamel Lambus: Ronald Rubinstein, Joseph R. Corozzo, Agatha M. Cole, Rubinstein & Corozzo, LLP, 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016
Stanley Fuller: James Kousouros, Law Office of James Kousouros, 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS
This case demonstrates the need to integrate the theory and practice of ostensibly independent branches of law enforcement—e.g., federal and state judges, federal and state criminal investigation and law enforcement personnel, and parole and probation supervisors—with respect to Fourth Amendment rights. To the average member of the public, state and federal government anti-crime personnel are part of one cohesive unit that investigates and prosecutes all crimes to protect the community and punish the guilty.
A law enforcement officer, whether employed by a state or the federal government, whatever his or her title, has the same obligation to enforce the same federal Constitution and to act reasonably and with some uniformity in enforcing all law.
The federal judiciary is integrated into our national law enforcement establishment. It is a part of the system of investigation and law enforcement when asked ex parte to approve applications for wiretaps or to pass upon motions to suppress.
Presented with only the government's viewpoint and information in ex parte wiretap application proceedings, a federal trial judge has little choice but to grant the application. See Wiretap Report 2015, available at http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2015 (in 2015, not a single wiretap application made pursuant to federal or state law was denied; all 4,148 were granted). Coordinate branches of government must define and enforce appropriate Fourth Amendment conduct to maintain an effective criminal justice system; coordination of state and federal systems raises substantial questions in the instant case.
Defendants Kamel Lambus and Stanley Fuller are charged with violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841 (b)(1)(A)(i), 841(b)(1)(13)(i), 841(b)(1)(C), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq . by participating in an extensive drug conspiracy. Defendants move to suppress: 1) location tracking data that was allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, 2) evidence that the government gathered as a result of that location tracking data, and 3) wiretapped conversations that were obtained based on an application to this court for a wiretap that contained perjured declarations of a federal law enforcement agent.
The motion of Lambus to suppress location data is denied.
The motion to suppress the conversations recorded pursuant to the wiretap authorization granted on January 9, 2015 in the cases against Lambus and Fuller is granted.
A years-long investigation by the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI"), the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA"), and the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"), resulted in the indictment of alleged members of a drug trafficking organization known as the "Paper Chasing Goons" or "POV City" (the "DTO"). Complaint, ECF No. 1. Allegedly, for several years, the DTO gang distributed heroin in South Jamaica, Queens. Id. In August 2015, a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York issued an indictment of Lambus, Fuller, and others. Indictment, ECF No. 61 at ¶¶ 1–3.
Lambus has been the subject of federal and state law enforcement interest for many years. Prior to his arrest in the instant case, he had been convicted of several crimes under New York law: attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 3rd degree (New York Penal Law ("NYPL") 220.39 ) (sentenced to 1 year of imprisonment); attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the 2nd degree (NYPL 265.03 ) (sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment and 5 years of post-release supervision); attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 5th degree (NYPL 220.06 ) (sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment and 2 years of post-release supervision); and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 5th degree (NYPL 220.06 ) (sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment and 1 year of post-release supervision). Jan. 9, 2015 [REDACTED] Aff., attached as Exhibit B to the Government's Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 287–2 ("Jan. 9, 2015 Aff."), at ¶ 41.
According to the government, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("NYSDOCCS") Bureau of Special Services ("BSS") Investigator Scanlon "began coordinating [BSS's investigation into Lambus's drug trafficking activities] with [federal] HSI and other law enforcement agencies" in June 2013. Government's Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 287, at 15; Dec. 1, 2016 Hr'g Tr. ("Hr'g Tr.") at 104:9–105:14. This cooperation continued until his arrest on July 8, 2015. Id . As described infra , the global positioning system ("GPS") monitoring of Lambus was repeatedly cited as evidence of probable cause in HSI's applications for wiretaps that HSI used to further its investigation of the defendants.
On March 7, 2012, Lambus was released from the sentence of imprisonment he was serving in connection with his 2010 conviction. Certificate of Release to Parole Supervision, attached as Exhibit L to the Government's Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 287–12 ("Certificate of Release"). Two days before release, he signed a "Certificate of Release to Parole Supervision" which acknowledged that he would be subject to post-release supervision by NYSDOCCS for a period of three years, four months, and 25 days. Id. Among other conditions of release, Lambus agreed to: "permit [his] Parole Officer to visit [him] at [his] residence and/or place of employment and ... permit the search and inspection of [his] person, residence, and property;" "not be in the company of or fraternize with any person [he] [knew] to have a criminal record;" "abide by a curfew established by the [Parole Officer];" and "fully comply with the instructions of [his] Parole Officer and obey such special additional written conditions as he or she, a Member of the Board of Parole or an authorized representative of the Division of Parole, may impose." Id.
Soon after beginning his parole supervision, Lambus was "flagged" by the NYSDOCCS Inspector General's ("IG") office. He had sent a letter and photographs to a state inmate which raised suspicions that he was selling narcotics. See Apr. 5, 2013 Scanlon Email, attached as Exhibit N to the Government's Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 287–14 ("Apr. 5, 2013 Scanlon Email") and Intercepted Lambus Letter, attached as Exhibit O to the Government's Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 287–15 ("Intercepted Lambus Letter"). Responding to this information, the IG and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") began a more active investigation of Lambus. See Apr. 5, 2013 Scanlon Email.
On March 17, 2013, NYSDOCCS conducted a curfew visit at Lambus's residence. He was not home. Parolee Chrono Report, attached as Exhibit M to the Government's Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 287–13 ("Parolee Chrono Report"), at 38. Lambus's girlfriend informed the defendant's parole officer that he was out visiting the mother of his child in Brooklyn. Id.
On April 5, 2013, an entry into NYSDOCCS's electronic tracking system for parolees was made by Parole Officer ("P.O.") Candace Benjamin at 10:00 am. Parolee CMS, attached as Exhibit P to the Government's Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 287–16 ("Parolee CMS"), at 5–6. Michael Resnick, the Chief of the NYSDOCCS Queens III Bureau (which was responsible for supervising Lambus's release at that time), had provided P.O. Benjamin with ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lambus
...required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(e), and the court suppressed the evidence gained from that wiretap, citing its inherent authority. See 221 F.Supp.3d 319 (2016). The court suppressed location data generated by the GPS device, ruling that Lambus's Fourth Amendment expectations of privacy were......
-
United States v. Lambus
...sanction"—may be lawful under the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement. United States v. Lambus , 221 F.Supp.3d 319, 336–37, 2016 WL 7422299, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016) ("The search, at least initially, was substantially related to the parole objective of ensuring Lambu......