United States v. Stanko, 2:18-cr-00334
| Decision Date | 09 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:18-cr-00334 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. THOMAS GEORGE STANKO, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Pending before the Court is Defendant Thomas Stanko's Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 43), in which Mr. Stanko seeks to suppress physical evidence—seventeen firearms, several rounds of ammunition, and a few notes handwritten by Mr. Stanko—seized during searches of Mr. Stanko's residence and rental storage unit pursuant to warrants issued by state court judges.
Upon review of Mr. Stanko's Motion to Suppress, the filings of record which the Court may properly consider, and the arguments counsel presented at oral argument, the Court denies Mr. Stanko's Motion to Suppress. Based on the totality of circumstances presented on the faces of both the residence and storage unit search warrant affidavits, the Court concludes that the state court judge who authorized the search warrants had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed to support the searches. And even if the Court concluded otherwise, the good faith exception applies in these circumstances, and suppression of the seized evidence would not be required. Mr. Stanko's suppression motion will therefore be denied.
Also before the Court are several other pretrial motions1 filed by Mr. Stanko. (ECF Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41.) For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part Mr. Stanko's five remaining pretrial motions.
On December 12, 2018, Mr. Stanko was federally indicted and charged with two counts of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, based on his status as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (ECF Nos. 1 and 2.) These charges stem from physical evidence seized during searches executed by Pennsylvania State Troopers at Mr. Stanko's residence ("Residence" or "Residence Warrant Affidavit") and at a storage unit rented by Mr. Stanko ("Storage Unit" or "Storage Unit Warrant Affidavit"). The fruit of these searches include seventeen firearms, several rounds of ammunition, as well as a few notes handwritten by Mr. Stanko. (ECF Nos. 50 and 51.)
Following the indictment, Mr. Stanko sought to suppress all evidence seized from the Residence and Storage Unit, arguing that the search warrant affidavits for both locations lacked probable cause. In addition to his Motion to Suppress, Mr. Stanko moved to compel certain evidentiary disclosures from the Government. (ECF Nos. 39-41.) On October 5, 2020, the Government responded only to the pending pretrial motions for discovery disclosures. (ECF No. 49.)
A few weeks later on October 27, 2020, the Government filed a superseding indictment charging Mr. Stanko with the same offenses, but adding language to account for § 922(g)'s specific knowledge element, as now required following the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019) (). Mr. Stanko then supplemented his earlier-filed Motion to Suppress with additional briefing, ECF No. 63, to which the Government responded at ECF No. 64. The Court held oral argument on the Motion to Suppress. During that proceeding, neither Mr. Stanko nor the Government sought to present testimony or evidence outside the written record as reflected on the docket. The record is now closed, and all motions pending before the Court are ripe for disposition.
"On a motion to suppress evidence, the trial judge sits as the finder of fact." United States v. France, 414 F. Supp. 3d 747, 750 (W.D. Pa. 2019) (citing United States v. Harris, 884 F. Supp. 2d 383, 387 n.2 (W.D. Pa. 2012)). Accordingly, a district court judge assesses the credibility of witnesses, weighs the evidence, and draws any appropriate conclusions and inferences from the evidence. Id. At the hearing of March 2, 2021, the Court heard argument only as to the legal issues relevant to Mr. Stanko's Motion to Suppress. As a result, the Court considers only the parties' briefing and exhibits in making its factual findings. The central exhibits before the Court include the two search warrant applications relied on for the searches of Mr. Stanko's Residence and rental Storage Unit, both entitled "Application for Search Warrant and Authorization"—the least-redacted versions of which can be found at ECF Nos. 49-1 and 63-2. A judge for the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania ("State Court Judge") approved both search warrant applications.
In addition to the briefing and exhibits before the Court, Mr. Stanko submitted four audio recordings of phone conversations that Mr. Stanko had with his mother and/or girlfriend while incustody at Westmoreland County Prison.2 (See "Remark" filed on December 7, 2020, and ECF No. 70.) The Court observes that both search warrant applications reference and paraphrase the substance of these recordings. The Government objects to the Court's consideration of the substance of these audio recordings as part of the evidentiary record, outside the paraphrased summaries presented in the warrant affidavits. (ECF No. 64.)
As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether to consider the substance of the jail audio recordings submitted by Mr. Stanko as part of the evidentiary record. In resolving (1) the legality of the search warrants' issuance and (2) the law enforcement officials' reliance on those warrants in executing the searches, the Court concludes as follows. First, the Court does not consider the audio recordings' substance—outside what was paraphrased in the warrant affidavits—in determining whether the State Court Judge had a substantial basis to conclude that information proffered in the affidavits established probable cause. See United States v. Folks, 452 F. Supp. 3d 238, 254 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (citing United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289, 295-96 (3d Cir. 2000)) ("[T]he District Court is restricted to viewing only the information confined by the 'four corners' of the affidavit before the magistrate."). Thus, the Court will only consider what was before the State Court Judge, i.e., the face of the affidavits, which include the affiant's paraphrased versions of those jail audio recordings.
The Government contends as a secondary argument, however, that should the Court conclude no substantial basis existed for the State Court Judge's probable cause determination, the good faith exception doctrine applies to uphold both searches' legitimacy and the fruits seized. In assessing whether the good faith exception extends to the police officers' reliance on the issued warrants, theCourt concludes that the jail audio recordings are relevant to its good faith exception analysis. As a result, the Court concludes that it is proper for it to consider the jail audio recordings' substance for that specific purpose. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 n.23 (1984) (). Having resolved the scope of the evidentiary record, the Court now summarizes its findings.
On August 22, 2018, Pennsylvania State Troopers executed a search warrant at Mr. Stanko's Residence: 339 White Fence Lane, Unity Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 49-1.) Mr. Stanko's mother, Almira Stanko, resides at this address, but Mr. Stanko is "the owner and holder of the deed to said property." (Id. at 4.) The Residence Warrant Affidavit outlined the following indicia as the basis for probable cause to believe illegal firearms were located on the property as well as "handwritten letters, instructions[,] and other types of mail correspondence," through which Mr. Stanko purportedly sought to remove and conceal the firearms. (Id. at 3.) First, the warrant affidavit describes a tip law enforcement received from an individual whose identity is redacted in the Exhibit presented to the Court, but who is described as "regularly speak[ing] with and visit[ing] . . . Almira Stanko." (Id.) While visiting Almira Stanko at the Residence on Saturday, April 21, 2018, or Sunday, April 22, 2018, this person "observed a [loaded] small caliber semi-automatic pistol in a holster" hidden in the back of a clock. (Id.)
Next, the Residence Warrant Affidavit chronologically paraphrases the recorded jail audio conversations between Mr. Stanko and his girlfriend, Rebecca Pravlik, as well as his mother, Almira Stanko. (Id.) The conversations occurred throughout the evening on August 20, 2018, while Mr. Stanko was in custody at Westmoreland County Prison. (Id.) The Court summarizes the affiant'smaterial observations of those conversations as follows: Mr. Stanko and his mother discussed a clock "that she had given [Mr. Stanko's son] against his wishes," at which point in the call, Mrs. Stanko "indicated that she had found something within the clock and knows all about it." (Id. at 5.) Mrs. Stanko explained that she found the item because the clock felt "heavy." (Id.) Mr. Stanko then asked his mother whether the item was still in the home, and his mother "confirmed that the item is currently in a drawer in [Mr. Stanko's] deceased father's bedroom." (Id.) Mr. Stanko then "began to repeatedly say something to the effect of, 3 or 4 more in the basement," which the affiant indicated he believed to be referencing more firearms. (Id.) Finally, Mr. Stanko and his mother continued to briefly discuss Christmas decorations in the Residence's basement. (Id.) Mr. Stanko told "Almira directly not to get rid of that Christmas stuff." (Id.)
Next, the affiant documented a paraphrased version of Mr. Stanko's phone conversation...
To continue reading
Request your trial