United States v. Rivera

Citation89 F.Supp.3d 376
Decision Date04 February 2015
Docket NumberNo. 13–CR–149 KAM.,13–CR–149 KAM.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, v. Paul RIVERA, Michael Garrett, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Alixandra Eleis Smith, United States Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, NY, for United States of America.

Steve Zissou, Steve Zissou & Associates, Bayside, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MATSUMOTO, District Judge:

In a third Superseding Indictment, defendants Michael Garrett (Mr. Garrett) and Paul Rivera (Mr. Rivera) (collectively, defendants) are charged with racketeering (Count I), racketeering conspiracy (Count II), interstate prostitution (Count III), conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking and sex trafficking of children (Count IV), sex trafficking and sex trafficking of children (Count V), conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine base, cocaine and marijuana (Count VI), possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine (Count VII), conspiracy to commit murder in-aid-of racketeering (Count IX), murder in-aid-of racketeering (Count X), murder while engaged in a narcotics trafficking offense (Count XI), using, carrying and possessing a firearm (Count XIV), and causing death through use of a firearm (Count XV). (Superseding Indictment (S–3) (“Indictment”), ECF No. 94.) Mr. Garrett also is charged with money laundering (Count VIII), and Mr. Rivera is charged with witness tampering (Count XII) and attempted obstruction of justice (Count XIII). (Id. )

These charges arise from the defendants' alleged involvement in a group known as “Together Forever” or “TF Mafia” that operated in the neighborhood of Brownsville in Brooklyn, New York as well as in Scranton, Pennsylvania. (Id. at 2.) The indictment alleges that defendants were both leaders of TF Mafia. (Id. )

After Mr. Rivera was stopped on January 18, 2012 by the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) and a police search of the vehicle yielded quantities of cocaine and heroin (see Gov.'s Memo. of Law in Resp. to Defs. Paul Rivera and Michael Garrett's Mots. to Suppress and Garrett's Initial Pre–Trial Mots. (“Opp.”) filed 7/8/14, ECF No. 117, at 3–4; Compl. filed 2/5/13, ECF No. 1), Mr. Rivera was charged with several felony violations of Pennsylvania law and was incarcerated in Pennsylvania pending trial. (Opp. at 4.) The defendants thereafter came to the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). (Opp. at 3.) On February 5, 2013, the Honorable Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York, issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Rivera based on a complaint charging him with conspiracy to distribute one or more controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (Compl.) Mr. Rivera was subsequently removed to federal custody. On March 11, 2013, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Mr. Rivera with conspiring to distribute one or more controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (Indictment as to Paul Rivera filed 3/11/2013, ECF No. 11.)

On June 24, 2013, defendants were charged together in a superseding indictment alleging a conspiracy to distribute one or more controlled substances and possession of cocaine and heroin with the intent to distribute. (Superseding Indictment filed 6/24/13, ECF No. 31.) On October 7, 2013, the grand jury returned a second superseding indictment that brought numerous charges against defendants, including racketeering conspiracy and racketeering, with specified predicate acts of narcotics trafficking, sex trafficking, money laundering, witness tampering, and murder. (Superseding Indictment (S–2) filed 10/7/13, ECF No. 62.) On April 28, 2014, the grand jury returned the current third superseding indictment (S–3).

Presently before the court are the following pre-trial motions filed by defendants.

Mr. Garrett's Motions

Mr. Garrett moves to (a) suppress physical evidence recovered from a September 1, 2010 car stop, (b) suppress Mr. Garrett's post-arrest statements after his arrest in this case on June 12, 2013, (c) direct the to government disclose all evidence favorable to Mr. Garrett pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), (d) direct the government to disclose any prior bad acts or criminal convictions that the government intends to use at trial pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b), (e) grant Mr. Garrett's request for a bill of particulars, (f) permit Mr. Garrett to bring further motions upon the basis of any newly discovered information, and (g) permit Mr. Garrett to join in the motions of his co-defendant as appropriate. (Memo. of Law in Support of Def.'s Pretrial Mots. (Garrett Mots.”) filed 6/9/14, ECF No. 110.)

Mr. Rivera's Motions

Mr. Rivera moves to (a) suppress physical evidence recovered pursuant to a search of a vehicle search on January 18, 2012, and (b) suppress Mr. Rivera's statements made to the government during a proffer session dated August 30, 2012. (Rivera Mots. filed 6/10/14, ECF No. 113.)

DISCUSSION
I. Mr. Garrett's Motions
A. Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence from Mr. Garrett's September 1, 2010 Car Stop and Arrest

Mr. Garrett moves to suppress evidence seized from his car when he was stopped on September 1, 2010 by a New Jersey State Police (“NJSP”) trooper for alleged traffic violations on the grounds that the stop was without probable cause, and the search that yielded the contraband was unlawful, because it was conducted without Mr. Garrett's consent and without probable cause. (See Garrett Mots. at 1–2.) The government argues that the stop of Mr. Garrett's vehicle was based on probable cause, because Mr. Garrett violated New Jersey traffic laws, the subsequent search of a package found in the trunk of the Garrett Vehicle was lawful, because Mr. Garrett lacked standing to challenge it, the search was supported by probable cause, and the contraband inevitably would have been discovered. (See Opp. at 46–51.)

On September 8, 2014, September 9, 2014, and October 29, 2014, the court held an evidentiary hearing addressing Mr. Garrett's and Mr. Rivera's motions to suppress evidence. Regarding Mr. Garrett's September 1, 2010 car stop, the government presented Todd Unangst1 (“Mr. Unangst”), the tow truck operator who towed Garrett's car, NJSP Trooper Rivas (“Trooper Rivas”), who initiated the September 1, 2010 car stop, NJSP Detective Shotwell (“Detective Shotwell”), who assisted with the investigation, and NJSP Detective Torre (“Detective Torre”), who conducted an inventory search of Mr. Garrett's car. Mr. Garrett did not present any witnesses and relied upon affirmations submitted in connection with his motion papers. (See Garrett Affirm. filed with Garrett Mots., ECF No. 110, at 3; Garrett Affirm. filed with Garrett Reply, ECF No. 123–1.) Mr. Garrett and the government filed post-hearing submissions with the court. (See Garrett's Post–Hr'g Memo. in Supp. of Garrett's Mot. to Suppress (“Garrett Post–Hr'g Memo.”), ECF No. 147; Gov.'s Proposed Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law following the Suppression Hr'g (“Gov. Post–Hr'g Memo.”), ECF No. 148.)

1. Factual Findings

During the evidentiary hearing, the witnesses for the government presented a credible and largely consistent account of Mr. Garrett's car stop on September 1, 2010.

a. Testimony from the Government Witnesses

According to Trooper Rivas2 , whose testimony the court found credible, on September 1, 2010, he was on duty and assigned to the night shift at the NJSP station in Hope, New Jersey (“Hope Police Station”), which is located off of Exit 12 on Interstate 80 (“I–80”). (T13 at 144–45). At approximately 10:30 p.m.4 , Trooper Rivas was patrolling I–80 when he observed a black Mercedes with New York license plate EML 4151 (the “Garrett Vehicle”) traveling westbound in the left lane on I–80. (Id. at 145–48.) Trooper Rivas observed that the Garrett Vehicle was having difficulty maintaining its position driving in the left lane. (Id. at 146.) He then saw the Garrett Vehicle change from the left lane to the center lane without signaling. (Id. )

Trooper Rivas testified that failing to maintain a lane and changing lanes without using a directional signal are violations of New Jersey state law and that, based on his observations of the traffic violations, he determined that he would stop the Garrett Vehicle. (Id. at 148, 155.) Trooper Rivas testified that he then turned on the lights on his police car and pulled the Garrett Vehicle over to the side of the road. (Id. at 221–22; see also Gov. Ex. DD5 at 22:30:22–22:30:51.) Trooper Rivas proceeded to have a conversation with Mr. Garrett, the driver and sole occupant of the Garrett Vehicle. (T1 at 15758). Trooper Rivas testified that he asked Mr. Garrett where he was going, to which Mr. Garrett responded that he was going to the Mohegan Sun casino to attend an event. (Id. ) Trooper Rivas told Mr. Garrett that he was stopped because Mr. Garrett was having trouble maintaining his lane and switched lanes without using his directional signal. (Id.; see also Gov. Ex. DD at 22:31:30–22:34:15.) Trooper Rivas testified that Mr. Garrett was “very apologetic” and stated that there were problems with the air pressure in his tires which caused his vehicle to swerve. The MVR footage corroborates Trooper Rivas's testimony regarding Mr. Garrett's admission to swerving. (T1 at 159; see also Gov. Ex. DD at 22:31:30–22:34:15.)

Trooper Rivas testified that he then advised Mr. Garrett that he was going to check his license and registration for traffic violations and asked if Mr. Garrett had any recent traffic violations. (T1 at 159–60; see also Gov. Ex. DD at 22:34:30–22:35:15.) Mr. Garrett responded that he had been stopped a few times in the past and had received a few traffic tickets, but that he should be in good standing. (Id. )

Trooper Rivas testified that after returning to his police vehicle and running Mr. Garrett's license and registration, he learned that Mr. Garrett's license had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • United States v. Iverson, 14-CR-197
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • February 25, 2016
  • United States v. Okon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 9, 2022
    ... ... it was “aware of its obligations and [would] comply ... with such obligations before trial” and where the ... defendant “provided no reason for suspecting the ... [g]overnment [would] fail to comply with its ... obligations”); United States v. Rivera , 89 ... F.Supp.3d 376, 396-97 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (declining to compel ... early disclosure where government represented it would ... produce Brady materials immediately upon becoming ... aware of such materials and would produce Giglio ... materials in advance of ... ...
  • United States v. Ortiz-Ortiz
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • February 1, 2022
    ... ... probable cause to believe that contraband or other evidence ... of a crime would be found in the vehicle. The detention and ... later arrest of defendant were permissible under the totality ... of the circumstances. See United States v. Rivera, ... 89 F.Supp.3d 376, 415 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (canine alert to the ... presence of drugs in vehicle, along with other indicia of ... criminal activity, create probable cause for arrest) ... Reasonable ... Suspicion Regarding Package Delivery to 90 River Street ... ...
  • United States v. Alhassane Ould Mohamed, 13-CR-527(WFK)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • December 1, 2015
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT