United States v. Lara-Mejia
Citation | 482 F.Supp.3d 281 |
Decision Date | 28 August 2020 |
Docket Number | Criminal No. 3:18-CR-18 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Johan M. LARA-MEJIA and Joel Mejia-Bisono, Defendants |
Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Michelle Olshefski, US Attorney's Office, Scranton, PA, for United States of America.
Gino A. Bartolai, Jr., Pittston, PA, for Defendant Johan M. Lara-Mejia.
Elliot A. Smith, Federal Public Defender's Office, Scranton, PA, for Defendant Joel Mejia-Bisono.
Four motions are pending before the Court in the above-captioned matter: Defendant Joel Mejia-Bisono's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Violation of the United States Constitution (Doc. 56) and Motion to Supplement Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Violation of the United States Constitution (Doc. 59) and Defendant Johan Lara-Mejia's Motion to Dismiss Count 5 – 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Doc. 69) and Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 70). Defendants’ motions to suppress are the main focus of this Memorandum Opinion. With the suppression motions, Defendants request that the Court suppress all evidence seized during the warrantless search of September 10, 2017, the subsequent search conducted pursuant to a search warrant on the same day, and tainted fruits of such evidence. (Doc. 56 at 3; Doc. 70 at 3.) As a result of evidence obtained during the searches at issue, Defendants were charged in a five-count Indictment on January 23, 2018. (Doc. 1.) The Indictment charges both Defendants with Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, three counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Doc. 1.) Upon consideration of the motions, related documents, and evidence presented at the Suppression Hearing held on December 17, 2019, the Court will grant the Motion to Supplement Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Violation of the United States Constitution (Doc. 59), deem withdrawn the Motion to Dismiss Count 5 – 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Doc. 69), and deny the Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Violation of the United States Constitution (Doc. 56) and Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 70)
On September 10, 2017, Pennsylvania State Police ("PSP") officers were dispatched to the Ramada Inn in Hazle Township, Pennsylvania, in response to a complaint from the hotel clerk of suspected drug activity. (Doc. 66 at 3.) Upon arrival at approximately 2:47 a.m., the clerk told the officers that an anonymous tip had been received about suspected drug activity in Room 212. (Id. ) At approximately 3:10 a.m., the officers knocked on the door of Room 212. (Id. ) The Ramada is a two-story structure. (Id. at 3 n.2.) Entrance doors to the hotel rooms open to the outside and each room has at least one large double window with curtains. (Id. )
The parties’ recitations and testimony concerning what happened next differs somewhat.1
In the Brief of the United States in Opposition to Joel Mejia-Bisono's Motion for Suppression of Evidence (Doc. 66), the Government provided the following summary of events which transpired after they knocked on the door of Room 212.2
(Doc. 66 at 5-6.) The Government states that both Troopers Williams and Stemrich pursued Defendants across the parking lot and into the nearby woods. (Doc. 66 at 6.) Mejia-Bisono was ahead of Lara-Mejia, and was able to get away,3 but "Trooper Williams was able to apprehend Lara-Mejia with the assistance of Trooper Stemrich." (Id. ) According to the Government, (Doc. 66 at 6-7.) Thereafter, the hotel manager unlocked Room 212 and the Government states that PSP officers then (Id. at 7.)
On September 10, 2017, at approximately 9:55 a.m., a search warrant was executed on Room 212 by members of the Clandestine Laboratory Response Team ("CLERT"). (Doc. 66 at 7 n.3.) Items seized from the room include the following:
(Doc. 66 at 8.)
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Baker
...Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure.’ " United States v. Lara-Mejia, 482 F.Supp.3d 281, 293 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561, (1974) ). "This prohibition als......
-
United States v. Taylor
...United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (1974)). “This prohibition also applies ‘to the fruits of the illegally seized evidence.'” Id. (quoting Calandra, 414 U.S. at 347). “The operates as ‘a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its ......
-
United States v. Nickas
...Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure.'” United States v. Lara-Mejia, 482 F.Supp.3d 281, 293 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974)). “This prohibition also a......
-
Conley v. St. Jude Med., LLC
... ... ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC, Defendant No. 1:20-cv-00286 United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. Filed August 28, 2020 482 F.Supp.3d 272 Thomas P. Lang, ... ...