United States v. Rauda-Constantino
| Decision Date | 06 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER: 1:18-CR-00203-AT-JSA |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ADOLFO ALEJANDRO RAUDA-CONSTANTINO (1) and ABEL DOMINGUEZ-MARTINEZ (3) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
This drug trafficking case is before the Court on the motions [64][65] of Defendants Adolfo Rauda-Constantino ("Rauda") and Abel Dominguez-Martinez ("Dominguez") to suppress the fruits of two search warrants. Specifically, Defendant Rauda moves to suppress geolocational data relating to his cell phone, the collection of which was authorized by a warrant issued by the Gwinnett County Superior Court [64]. Defendant Dominguez moves to suppress the results of a search of a truck, which was authorized by a warrant issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas [65].
As to the affidavit supporting the geolocational search warrant into Defendant Rauda's phone, the Government agrees that false statements were made, although it contends that the statements were immaterial to probable cause and were made unintentionally. After an evidentiary hearing, the Court agrees that the false statements were made unintentionally. The Court further finds that the other issues raised by each Defendant are meritless. Thus, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motions To Suppress Search Warrants [64][65] be DENIED.1
The first motion concerns Rauda's challenge to a Gwinnett County warrant for geolocational cell phone data. Rauda argues that the affidavit was procured by false statements and that suppression is warranted under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Rauda also argues that the geolocational warrant was "void ab initio," because the Judge lacked authority to issue a geolocational cell phone warrant, and/or to order tracking of a device outside of Gwinnett County.
On May 2, 2018, Investigator A. Saunders of the Snellville Police Department applied for and received a warrant from the Honorable George F.Hutchinson, Superior Court Judge of the Gwinnett Judicial Circuit, allowing receipt of geolocational data for forty five (45) days relating to a cell phone that was later determined to be in Rauda's possession. [64-2]. In the warrant application, Investigator Saunders stated that:
[64-1] at 4. The warrant application stated that both the subscriber of the Subject Telephone and the subscriber's address were "Unknown." Id. at 1.
Based this affidavit, Judge Hutchinson granted the requested warrant, directed to T-Mobile USA (c/o its registered agent, in Norcross, Georgia), for the requested geolocational data for the Subject Telephone. In so doing, Judge Hutchinson specifically found:
There is probable cause that, within Gwinnett County, the above described crime/offense is being committed; and that a particular instrument, article, or thing, information or data, (whether tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, visible or invisible) is evidence, to-wit: the specified device, with service provided by the above-named service provider, is intended for use in the commission of the specified crime.
[64-2] at 2.
In his Motion, Defendant alleged that this warrant was obtained based on false statements by Investigator Saunders. Specifically, the Defendant alleged that the drug transaction did not occur at or near the Gwinnett County address identified in the application; that the geolocational signals that were obtained showed the Subject Telephone to almost exclusively be located in Dekalb County, not Gwinnett County; that during the period of the warrant the investigators were surveilling an address in Dekalb County, not the Lawrenceville address identified in the application; and that the investigators never informed Judge Hutchinson or unilaterally ceased relying on the Gwinnett County warrant once it allegedly became clear that the phone was actually in Dekalb County. [64] at 17-19. The undersigned agreed that the allegations were at least sufficiently close to warrant an evidentiary hearing on this limited issue as requested by the Defendant [79]. Thus, the Court held a hearing on May 7, 2019 [95].
In the hearing, Investigator Saunders and his source of information from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Investigations ("HSI"), Special Agent Steven Ledgerwood, both testified. S/A Ledgerwood testified that the same CI had had several weeks earlier provided information about a prior telephone number (the "Prior Phone"). Tr. [99] at 45-46. The CI explained that the user of the Prior Phone was part of a trafficking group receiving "loads of narcotics here in Atlanta" from Mexico. Id. The officers received a geolocational warrant relating to the Prior Phone from a Judge in Coweta County, Georgia, and the results ended up showing that the user of the Prior Phone was primarily located at 230 Grayland Court, Lawrenceville, in Gwinnett County. Id. at 45-48.
As a result, another HSI agent contacted Investigator Saunders on April 6, 2018, approximately 3-4 weeks prior to the search warrant at issue here, to investigate possible drug trafficking activity at the 230 Grayland Court address. See Tr. [99] at 9, 22. HSI reported to Investigator Saunders that they had been receiving information from a geolocational warrant indicating that a suspected drug trafficker was located at that address. Id. Over the course of the next few days or weeks, Investigator Saunders conducted surveillance at Grayland Court on two occasions and drove by that address on other occasions. Id. at Tr. 10-11. During these activities, Investigator Sanders did not specifically see anything suspicious, although he knew that the address was in a high drug trafficking area. Id. at 15-17, 23-24.
On one occasion in April prior to the April 30th search warrant, HSI agents noticed that the geolocational data from the Coweta warrant indicated that the user of the Prior Phone had left the Grayland Court residence and was traveling southbound towards Macon. Id. at 48-49. The agents reached out to the Georgia State Patrol, which initiated a traffic stop. Id. at 49-51. While the stop apparently did not elicit evidence of drug trafficking activity, the officers were able to determine that one of the vehicle's occupants had prior drug-related criminal history; that the occupants were en route to meet another individual (one of the occupant's brothers) who also had a prior drug conviction; and that one of the occupants had identification that indicated residence at 230 Grayland Court. Id. at 50. The officers conducted a stop of another vehicle leaving Grayland Court on another occasion, but it turned out to be just an Uber car. Tr. at 15.
S/A Ledgerwood also learned that the individuals who had been frequenting the Grayland Court address were observed by DEA agents conducting surveillance in a separate case. Id. at 41-42. According to DEA, the individuals were involved in what appeared to be a potential sale of a vehicle with a hidden smuggling trap inside. Id. at 41-42, 54. The HSI agents asked Investigator Saunders to periodically monitor the Grayland Court address, but they otherwise discontinued receiving data from the Coweta County warrant because of cost. Id. at 51. At some point, the agents also identified another apartment that was also tied to the same subjects although no other specifics were elicited at the hearing. Id. at 51.
Around April 30, 2018, in the tip that led to the instant warrant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial