United States v. Marroquin

• Decision Date: 29 October 2020
• Docket Number: Criminal Action No. 6:19-CR-031-CHB-HAI-6
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY MARROQUIN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY MARROQUIN, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 6:19-CR-031-CHB-HAI-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London)

October 29, 2020

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Hanly Ingram's Recommended Disposition and Order [R. 172] denying Defendant Timothy Marroquin's Motion to Suppress [R. 77], Motion to Strike Surresponse to Defendants' Replies [R. 101], and Motion for Disclosure of Government Evidence [R. 92].¹ Defendant Marroquin filed Exceptions to the Recommended Disposition [R. 176] and the United States filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Objections and Exceptions [R. 183]. For the reasons described below, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition and Order and overrule Defendant's Exceptions.

I. Background Facts

On June 27, 2019, Defendant Timothy Marroquin was indicted as part of a multidefendant drug trafficking conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. [R. 1-1] In order toconvict Marroquin, the United States has presented several forms of evidence it hopes to use at trial. That evidence will be described in turn, below.

a. Search of Marroquin's Facebook

The first piece of evidence at issue is communications from Marroquin's Facebook account. During the investigation, and after a controlled purchase of methamphetamine, the Kentucky State Police (KSP) discovered that Marroquin was using Facebook Messenger to coordinate drug transactions. [R. 77-2, p. 2.] KSP applied for a search warrant on March 18, 2019 from the Bell District Court to search Marroquin's Facebook account, messages, wall posts, photos, and login information. [Id., p. 1] The factual portion of the affidavit supporting the search warrant application stated, in full:

Affiant has been an officer in [KSP] for a period of 16 years and the information and observations contained herein were received and made in his/her capacity as an officer thereof.

On Tuesday March 12th 2019, an undercover drug transaction was conducted using a confidential informant, which purchased approximately 57 grams of suspected crystal meth from a male subject by the name of Timothy Marroquin for the purchase price of $1100.00. It was discovered prior to the illegal drug transaction that the suspect has used and continues to use Facebook messenger as a form of communication to arrange these types of drug transactions.

Through an ongoing drug investigation, a suspect by the name of Rebecca Lannan, aka, Becky Littles has been identified as a conspirator involved in this investigation. Through information gathered during this investigation by surveillance of said subjects, prior Facebooks search warrants, and information gathered by a qualified confidential informant, Rebecca Lannan and Timothy Marroquin are conspiring to traffic in crystal meth. The two are believed to be using Facebook messenger as a means to communicate to one another when arranging drug deals, and further their illegal drug trafficking business.

[Id.] The Court granted the search warrant that same day. [R. 77-3] It was executed on April 1, 2019. [Id.]

Defendant Marroquin moved to suppress evidence derived from this search warrant. [R. 77] Marroquin's codefendant, Rebecca Lannan, also filed a Motion to Suppress for evidence gathered under a search warrant for her own Facebook account. [R. 74]² In its Response to Marroquin and Lannan's Motions to Suppress [R. 82], the government advised that it would not use information gathered from either Facebook search warrant as direct evidence at trial. [R. 82] But it maintained that it may "use Facebook materials pertaining to either Defendant derived from other sources (i.e., cooperators' Facebook Messenger accounts accessed by and through the consent of those persons)." [Id.] Consequently, it asked that Marroquin's (and Lannan's) Motion to Suppress be denied as moot. [Id.] Defendants still asked, however, that their Motions to Suppress be granted, alleging that the warrants at issue led to further searches that should be suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree." [R. 83]

b. Search of the Lannan Residence

On May 15, 2019, after the search of Marroquin's Facebook account, KSP applied in Bell District Court for a search warrant of Lannan's residence, using information gleaned from the Facebook searches in the affidavit. [R. 95-1] The factual portion of the affidavit stated, in full:

On May 8, 2019 I conducted a controlled undercover drug transaction utilizing a Kentucky State Police confidential informant which purchased approximately 3oz of suspected crystal methamphetamine from Timothy Marroquin inside above described residence in Pineville KY 40977 for the purchase price of $1800.00 (Kentucky State Police buy money)[.] During the transaction surveillance was maintained by detectives. Reference case # 10-19-0207[.]

Acting on the information received, Affiant conducted the following independent investigation:

Through surveillance of the residence and qualified confidential informant statements that have notified detectives that Becky Little and Timothy Marroquinhold large amounts of crystal methamphetamines and large amounts of U.S. currency. Through social media conversations it has been revealed that the residence is used to store and traffic narcotics throughout the surrounding area.

Through training, experience and knowledge it is believed that Becky Littles, and Timothy Marroquin store large amounts of narcotics and money at this residence.

[R. 95-1, p. 4 (emphasis added)] The search warrant was approved that same day and executed on May 17, 2019. [Id., pp. 1-2] Defendant Marroquin argues that the information gleaned from the Facebook searches—the language in bold above—must be struck from the affidavit as "fruit of the poisonous tree." [R. 157, p. 4] As a result, Marroquin argues that the search itself must be suppressed because, if the challenged information is struck, the warrant for Lannan's residence is not supported by probable cause. [Id.]

c. Interviews of Witnesses X and Z

As part of a separate investigation, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) got involved to pursue the suppliers of this drug conspiracy. [R. 122, Evidentiary Hearing, Recording at 01:01:42-01:03:33]. The DEA interviewed Witnesses X and Z, who are known to Defense counsel (X being a codefendant), on January 14, 2020 and late February, 2020, respectively. [R. 157, p. 5] DEA Agent Ian Dalrymple, who interviewed the witnesses, reviewed the information from the Marroquin Facebook search in 2019, before the 2020 interviews. [Id.] Both interviews contain references to Marroquin. [DEA-6]³ Defendant moved to suppress information from these interviews as "fruit of the poisonous tree," arguing it was derived from the challenged Facebook search warrant. [R. 157, p. 6] The government, however, maintained it discovered these witnesses through independent sources. [R. 156, p. 2] Magistrate Judge Ingram held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Suppress on May 7, 2020. Agent Dalrymple was questioned about how the witnesses were discovered and questioned, and he maintained that he did not rely on the Facebook search materials at all. [R. 122, Recording, 01:06:22-01:07:25] But he was not able to say much about how he came to know information about Marroquin: he could not say when he first learned of Marroquin, nor could he say how Marroquin's name came up in the interviews. [Id. at 00:50:39-00:50:54; 01:23:27-01:25:44] Agent Dalrymple identified sources other than the Facebook search that led to his interest in Marroquin, but he could not identify the specific way by which he found out about Marroquin. [Id. at 01:27:02-01:28:26.]

II. Recommended Disposition

In Marroquin's Motion to Suppress [R. 77], he alleged that the information gleaned from the search of his Facebook account must be excluded because the search warrant lacked probable cause and did not qualify for an exception to the "Exclusionary Rule." [R. 77-1., pp. 6-10]⁴ The government filed a Response, advising the Court that it would not use information from the Facebook search in its case-in-chief. [R. 82] Defendant filed a Reply [R. 83], questioning what other evidence the government may seek to admit. The United States filed a Response [R. 95], maintaining that other information to be introduced was not derivative of the Facebook search. [R. 95, p. 2] Defendant filed a Reply [R. 97], which identified the search of Lannan's residence as a derivative search that should be suppressed for lacking probable cause. [Id., pp. 4-9] Defendant also argued at the April 22, 2020 telephone conference that information from Witnesses X and Z should be suppressed as derivative from the Facebook search. [R. 115] On July 10, 2020, Magistrate Judge Ingram filed a Recommended Disposition and Order [R. 172], which denied the Motion to Suppress on all fronts. The Recommended Disposition made the following recommendations:

Search of Marroquin's Facebook: First, Judge Ingram recommended that the search warrant lacked probable cause, since the affidavit supporting it did not provide an adequate nexus between the supporting information (the controlled purchase from Marroquin) and the object of the search (his Facebook account). [R. 172, pp. 8-10] Specifically, the affidavit failed to articulate how KSP discovered that Marroquin was using Facebook Messenger for drug deals or why it believed as much, nor did it identify the account to be searched as Marroquin's account. [Id., pp. 8-9] Instead, it only provided a basis for showing Marroquin was dealing drugs and a crime was committed on the account to be searched. [Id., p. 8] Even with probable cause lacking, though, the evidence was still admissible under the "Good-Faith Exception" to the exclusionary rule, since the police officer's reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable and there was no evidence that the officer...