United States v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 13 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | 16-CR-545 (S-3)(ADS) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. TYRONE ROBINSON |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
United States Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York
610 Federal Plaza
By: Allen Lee Bode, Assistant United States Attorney, Of Counsel.
By: Megan Elizabeth Farrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Of Counsel.
300 Old Country Rd, Suite 341
Mineola, NY 11501
By: Robert P. LaRusso, Esq., Of Counsel.
Presently before the Court are several motions by defendant Tyrone Robinson (the "Defendant"): to suppress various pieces of evidence seized and recovered by the Suffolk County Police Department ("SCPD") and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF"); to reconsider an order denying suppression of information found on a cellphone taken from the Defendant's residence by New York State ("NYS") parole officers; and to dismiss alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for failure to state a claim.
For the following reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion for a suppression hearing regarding: the evidence seized from the 2016 Black Chrysler Van with New Jersey License M23GCW (the "Rental Van") on March 26, 2016; the evidence seized from the cellphone with the number (718) 350-0346 (the "Roof Cellphone") without a warrant; and evidence seized under the authority of the July 8, 2016 warrant to search the Roof Cellphone. The Court denies the Defendant's remaining motions.
As not all facts are relevant to the instant motions, the Court will state the relevant facts when they are necessary to the determination of each specific motion. However, the Court will provide a brief overview of the relevant seizures and warrants underlying the motions.
On March 26, 2016, SCPD seized, amongst other things, two cellphones and the Rental Van. The parties dispute the location of and circumstances under which SCPD found the seized items.
On April 15, 2016, SCPD Detective Vincent Callahan ("Callahan") obtained a search warrant for the Rental Van and the cellphone with the number (631) 383-4840 (the "Van Cellphone"). ECF 137-15.
On June 10, 2016, NYS parole officers seized a cellphone (the "Parole Cellphone") pursuant to the Defendant's arrest in his residence.
On July 8, 2016, ATF Special Agent Liscinsky ("Liscinsky") submitted an Affidavit (the "Liscinsky Affidavit") to United States Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields in support of an application for warrants to search the Defendant's residence, the Second Floor Apartment of 1087 Martinstein Avenue, Bayshore, New York 11706 (the "Residence" or "Defendant's Residence"); an e-mail account with the address "tyrob1126@gmail.com" (the "Gmail Account"); and the Roof Cellphone. ECF 131-10. After reviewing the Liscinsky Affidavit, Judge Shields issued threefederal warrants, authorizing searches of the Residence, including any locked or closed containers therein, the Roof Cellphone, and the Gmail Account. ECF 131-3; ECF 131-4; ECF 131-5.
On July 21, 2016, after reviewing a June 11, 2018 affidavit, ECF 131-15 (the "Cassidy Affidavit"), United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke issued a warrant to search the Parole Cellphone. ECF 131-16.
On October 9, 2016, the Government filed a complaint against the Defendant charging the Defendant with alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), Hobbs Act robbery, and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. ECF 1.
On January 11, 2017, the Government filed a 22-count indictment against the Defendant. ECF 16.
On March 15, 2017, the Government filed a 32-count superseding indictment charging the Defendant with multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery, Hobbs Act attempted robbery, and Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 2 and 3551 et seq.; brandishing one or more firearms during crimes of violence, 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 2 and 3551 et seq.; possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 3551 et seq.; discharging one or more firearms during crimes of violence, 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 924(c)(1)(C)(i), 2 and 3551 et seq.; firearm-related murder, 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j)(1), 2 and 3551 et seq.; and possession of ammunition by a felon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(A)(2) and 3551 et seq. ECF 40.
On May 8, 2017, the Defendant filed motions, inter alia, to dismiss the alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for failure to state a claim; and to suppress evidence recovered from the Defendant's Residence by NYS parole officers pursuant to a parole arrest warrant on June 10, 2016. ECF 61; ECF 62. The Defendant supplemented his motions on September 22, 2017, seeking to suppress evidenceseized from his apartment pursuant to the July 8, 2016 federal search warrant, based upon a purported deliberate or reckless error under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978).
On November 1, 2017, the Court issued a decision: (1) denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the 924(c) charges; (2) ordering the conduction of a limited hearing concerning "whether the seizure of the Defendant's cellphone by New York State parole officers was rationally and reasonably related to the parole officers' duties; and (3) denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the July 8, 2018 federal search warrant. ECF 84.
On January 8, 2018, Judge Shields conducted a hearing, ECF 90, and issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") regarding the cellphone on January 16, 2018. ECF 91. On January 29, 2018, then-counsel to the Defendant Kevin Keating filed objections to the R&R. ECF 96. The Government responded on February 6, 2018. ECF 98.
On February 17, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum of Decision and Order (the "Order"), denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized from the cellphone. ECF 101.
On April 27, 2018, the Defendant's current counsel orally argued for reconsideration of the Order, ECF 110, which the Court denied.
On August 14, 2018, the Defendant brought the following motions, which are presently before the Court, seeking:
On September 12, 2018, the Government filed a response arguing that the Court should deny the Defendants' motions without a hearing. ECF 137.
An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress "ordinarily is required if the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in question." United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir.1992) (citations and quotations omitted). A defendant seeking a hearing on a suppression motion bears the burden of showing the existence of disputed issues of material fact. See id. at 338. A district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing if the defendant's "moving papers did not state sufficient facts which, if proven, would have required the granting of the relief requested[.]" United States v. Culotta, 413 F.2d 1343, 1345 (2d Cir.1969). Further, a court need not hold an evidentiary hearing when the "defendant's statements are general,conclusory or based on conjecture." United States v. Viscioso, 711 F.Supp. 740, 745 (S.D.N.Y.1989).
For the following reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion for a suppression hearing regarding the evidence seized from the Rental Van and the Roof Cellphone. The Court denies the Defendant's remaining motions.
On March 26, 2016, SCPD searched the Rental Van without a warrant. The Defendant argues that SCPD lacked sufficient probable cause, and that a hearing is necessary to determine all of the relevant facts surrounding the warrantless search of the vehicle. According to his version of the events, SCPD arrested him after he parked the Rental Van in a public area, after which SCPD searched the vehicle. ECF 132-1 ¶ 3. The Defendant further contends that the facts set forth in Callahan's affidavit reporting the events underlying the seizure fail to establish probable cause. ECF 131-1 ¶ 5.
The Government contends that SCPD searched the Rental Van while looking for the Defendant after the reported burglary of the Lake Grove Residence. According to the Government, the search of the Rental Van occurred as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial