United States v. Martinez

• Decision Date: 16 November 2022
• Docket Number: Crim. 22-86 (PJS/BRT)
• Parties: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. (1) Manuel Denis Martinez, and (2) Gabriel Eduardo Lemoine, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
(1) Manuel Denis Martinez, and (2) Gabriel Eduardo Lemoine, Defendants.

Crim. No. 22-86 (PJS/BRT)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

November 16, 2022

Thomas M. Hollenhorst, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for Plaintiff.

Jennifer Rose Congdon, Esq., Congdon Law, PLLC, counsel for Defendant Martinez. Catherine L. Turner, Esq., Attorney at Law, counsel for Defendant Lemoine.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BECKY R. THORSON, United States Magistrate Judge.

On May 17, 2022, Defendants Manuel Denis Martinez and Gabriel Eduardo Lemoine were indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846; one count of distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2; two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. (Doc. No. 1, Indictment.) This matter is before the Court on the following motions:

1

• Defendant Lemoine's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of an Ionscan (Doc. No. 44)

• Defendant Lemoine's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of a Tracking Device (Doc. No. 45)

• Defendant Lemoine's Motion for Franks Hearing (Doc. No. 46)

• Defendant Lemoine's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Searches Pursuant to Warrant (Doc. No. 47);

• Defendant Martinez's Motion for Hearing Pursuant to Franks v. Delaware (Doc. No. 53);

• Defendant Martinez's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of an Ionscan (Doc. No. 56);

• Defendant Martinez's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained after Execution of Search Warrants (Doc. No. 60); and

• Defendant Martinez's Motion for Suppression of Evidence Obtained in Violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Doc. No. 61).

Through these motions, Defendants seek to suppress the evidence obtained from a vehicle tracker device, three ion scans, and the searches of two residences and two storage units.

A hearing was held on the motions on September 2, 2022, whereby testimony was received by Special Agent Jacob Henkemeyer from Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”)^[1]and eighteen exhibits were admitted. (Doc. Nos. 74, 75.) The Court ordered post-hearing briefing, which was received from Defendants on October 2 and 3, 2022

2

(Doc. Nos. 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89), and from the Government on October 17, 2022. (Doc. No. 91.)

The matter was referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and D. Minn. LR 72.1. For the reasons set forth below, this Court recommends that Defendant Lemoine's and Defendant Martinez's motions be denied.

BACKGROUND

In February 2022, law enforcement received information from a confidential informant (“CI”) relating to the distribution of methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana within the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, and the surrounding metropolitan areas. The CI told law enforcement that they were an acquaintance of two members^[2] of the illegal narcotics organization and provided details about current and past operations, much of which was corroborated by law enforcement. (Doc. No. 75, Jt. Ex. List, Gov't Ex. 2.) The CI then set up a meeting with the two men at Keyes Cafe in St. Paul, whose identities at that time were unknown to law enforcement, and provided information to law enforcement that the men would likely be driving a blue Jeep Liberty with a certain license plate number. (Gov't Ex. 1; Tr. 14-15, 76-77.) The purpose of this meeting was to set up a purchase of methamphetamine. (Tr. 15-16.) The initial meeting was surveilled

3

by law enforcement and took place as expected,^[3]however, the men did not arrive in a Jeep Liberty, but in a gold Chevy Tahoe instead. (Gov't Ex. 2; Tr. 15, 85.) Before this initial meeting, law enforcement sought and received a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on the blue Jeep Liberty. (Gov't Ex. 1.)

On March 3, 2022, several law enforcement officers surveilled a second scheduled meeting at an Applebee's in Woodbury, Minnesota, where the CI met with the two men. (Tr. 15-17.) Officers observed a drug transaction take place during the second meeting; after the transaction, the CI turned over to the officers approximately one pound of methamphetamine that he obtained from the two men. (Tr. 18-19.) For the second meeting, the two men came and left in the same gold Chevy Tahoe that they were seen in the day before.^[4] (Tr. 15, 17, 85.)

When the men left the scene, agents followed them to a gas station and then to an apartment complex in Burnsville. (Tr. 19, 74, 86.) After the two men went inside the apartment complex, Agent Henkemeyer went inside the complex to speak to an apartment manager. (Tr. 19.) While inside the management office, Agent Henkemeyer

4

observed the two men come into the office to pay rent. (Tr. 20-21, 75, 86-87.) After the two men left, the office manager identified Gabriel Lemoine by name and recognized the second man as Mr. Martinez. (Tr. 20-21, 75.)

At approximately 5:00 p.m., while Agent Henkemeyer and the two men were inside the apartment complex, Officer Gleason of the St. Paul Police Department installed a GPS tracking device on the bottom of the gold Chevy Tahoe.^[5](Tr. 22.) It is undisputed that at that time, the officers did not have a warrant to place the tracking device on the gold Chevy Tahoe.^[6]After the GPS device was installed, Sergeant Thomas Weinzettel of the St. Paul Police Department drafted a search warrant application and affidavit for the installation and monitoring of a GPS device on the gold Chevy Tahoe, and submitted it to a Dakota County Judge, who signed the warrant at 7:42 p.m. (Gov't Ex. 2.) It is undisputed that the GPS tracker was active on the vehicle when it was placed on the vehicle at 5:00 p.m. on March 3, 2022,^[7]but that no actual data was retrieved by officers

5

from the system that recorded the GPS data until 10:32 p.m. later that night.^[8](Gov't Ex. 12; Tr. 33.)

The data collected from the GPS device allowed law enforcement to see where the Tahoe was at any point in time. (Tr. 79.) From the GPS data, law enforcement learned that the vehicle made frequent trips between the Burnsville apartment, an apartment in Woodbury, and two storage units. (Tr. 79.)

On April 12, 2022, law enforcement visited the two storage units - one in Woodbury (storage unit #444) and the other in Lake Elmo, Minnesota (storage unit #6001). (Tr. 59, 62.) Both storage units were rented by Defendant Lemoine. Staff at both locations allowed agents behind the locked gate into the open, common area lined with garage storage units. (Tr. 59-65, 93-94; see Gov't Exs. 14-18.) The storage unit garage doors were locked with padlocks. For each storage unit rented by Lemoine, officers wiped the door handle and lock with a small cotton disk (i.e., ion swab), which was then analyzed to determine whether they detected evidence of controlled substances (i.e.,

6

through an ion scan).^[9] (Tr. 52-54.) The swabs from the storage units yielded positive results. (Tr. 68.)

On April 15, 2022, law enforcement returned to the Burnsville apartment building where Defendant Lemoine rented unit #303. Management let the agents into the building and provided them with keys to the common doors of the building. (Tr. 56-58.) The agents went to the door for unit #303 and wiped the exterior door handle with an ion swab. (Tr. 53, 68.) Like with the storage unit door handles, this involved taking a cotton disc and rubbing it on the handle for several seconds. (Tr. 53, 94.) This cotton disc was then analyzed for evidence of controlled substances and returned with a positive result. (Tr. 53-54, 68.)

The above information was then used to obtain search warrants for certain locations. (See Gov't Exs. 3, 4, 5, 6.) Specifically, on April 14, 19, and 20, 2022, respectively, Sergeant Weinzettel submitted applications for search warrants and received signed warrants for the Lake Elmo and Woodbury storage units, the apartment in Burnsville, and the apartment in Woodbury. (Gov't Exs. 3, 4, 5, 6.) The warrants were executed on April 21, 2022, and evidence was seized at all four locations. (Id.)

DISCUSSION

The issues before the Court are (1) whether Defendant has met his showing for a Franks hearing and, if no Franks hearing will be had, whether the search warrant affidavit for the GPS tracking warrant on the gold Chevy Tahoe provided sufficient

7

probable cause; (2) whether the evidence collected by the GPS tracking device should be suppressed due to a search conducted in violation of Defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, or whether the search warrant for the GPS tracker on the gold Chevy Tahoe was an independent source for the tracking data; (3) whether the ion swabs were improper warrantless searches in violation of Defendants' Fourth Amendment rights; and (4) whether, after any necessary redaction, the search warrants for the two apartments and the two storage units were supported by probable cause. This Court addresses each of these issues below.

I. Franks Hearing

A defendant may challenge the veracity of a search warrant affidavit offered in support of probable cause. See United States v. Sundby, 186 F.3d 873, 876 (8th Cir. 1999). Defendants Martinez and Lemoine challenge the veracity of the GPS tracking warrant for the gold Chevy Tahoe and assert that a Franks hearing should be held to examine the issue further. (Doc. Nos. 81, 89.)

“To warrant a hearing on the affidavit's veracity, the defendant must make ‘a substantial showing that the affidavit contains intentional or reckless false...