United States v. Stevens
Decision Date | 19 July 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 82 CR 122.,82 CR 122. |
Citation | 543 F. Supp. 929 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Michael STEVENS, Dan Cotsirilos, John P. Heck, and David Shlagman, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Robert Breisblatt, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Kent R. Brody, Herbert Abrams, Edward M. Genson, Robert J. Cooley, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
The defendants Michael Stevens, Dan Cotsirilos, John P. Heck, and David Shlagman were named in a four-count indictment returned by the February 1982 Grand Jury. Each was charged with receiving two stolen motion pictures, "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" and "On The Right Track", in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2315 and 2, and infringing the copyrights of these two films in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Defendants Stevens, Cotsirilos, and Shlagman each have filed a number of pretrial motions. Defendants Heck and Stevens have filed general motions to adopt the pretrial motions and briefs filed by their codefendants.
The Court has previously denied the motions to sever. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court rules on the following motions: (1) motions to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant; (2) motions to suppress statements; (3) Stevens' motion to dismiss the indictment; (4) Cotsirilos' motion to dismiss the indictment (adopted by his codefendants); (5) motions for a bill of particulars; and (6) motions for production of exculpatory material (including Stevens' motion to produce evidence concerning inducements, promises and compensation to prospective government witnesses).
The defendants have filed motions to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant issued by Magistrate Sussman on June 11, 1981, and executed on the same date. Pursuant to this warrant, prints of the movies "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" and "On The Right Track", as well as an assortment of video cassette recorders, tapes, and film materials, were seized.
Shlagman, Cotsirilos, and Heck affirmatively state that they have "standing" to challenge the legality of the search warrant, while the government contests their "standing" to raise this defense. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Cotsirilos, Shlagman, and Heck lack the capacity to challenge the legality of the search warrant. Their motions to suppress are denied.
Stevens also claims "standing" to challenge the legality of the search warrant, which right the government does not contest. The Court finds that Stevens has capacity to challenge the warrant, but denies his motion to suppress as well.
These three defendants state that the evidence seized as a result of the search at 531 Wrightwood, Elmhurst, Illinois, included "one or two of the defendants' video recorders," that they were playing cards with friends in a "once a week game" at the location searched (which they state was owned by their codefendant Stevens), and that pursuant to Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), they have "standing" to challenge the sufficiency of the search warrant.
In Rakas v. Illinois, supra, the Court rejected the analysis of "standing" as the measure of the legal capacity to assert, by way of a motion to suppress evidence, the protection of the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that in order to challenge the legality of a search warrant, a defendant must allege that his "legitimate expectation of privacy" was violated by the search. See United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980).
These defendants, who played cards once a week at Stevens' place of business, cannot be said to have had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched. They have alleged no right to exclude others from this location, no right to use the premises in Stevens' absence, the possession of no key, nor the presence of clothes, books, food, or anything else even arguably creating a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched. Cf. United States v. Swart, 679 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1982) ( ); United States v. Posey, 663 F.2d 37 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 1473, 71 L.Ed.2d 679 (1982) ( ); and United States v. Lupo, 652 F.2d 723 (7th Cir. 1981) ( ). The fact that one or two video recorders owned by some of these defendants were present at the location searched does not by itself give them legal capacity to challenge the search. The "automatic standing" rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), seemingly relied on here by these defendants, was rejected and Jones overruled by United States v. Salvucci, supra. Thus the motions of Cotsirilos, Shlagman, and Heck to suppress the evidence seized, and their derivative motions to suppress statements made after the search, under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), are denied.
The government has not challenged, on grounds of "standing" or the lack of a "legitimate expectation of privacy," Stevens' motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant. Thus this Court must reach the question of the sufficiency of the search warrant pursuant to which allegedly incriminating evidence was seized.
At the outset, the Court must state that the question of the existence of probable cause presented by the affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant is a close question. However, after careful consideration of the affidavit in light of the applicable precedent, the Court finds that probable cause did exist, and therefore denies Stevens' motion to suppress.
On June 11, 1981, at 3:03 a. m., Special Agent of the FBI, Kenneth R. Misner swore to an 11-paragraph affidavit presented to Magistrate Sussman. The first four paragraphs of the affidavit sketch out in broad form Misner's background with the FBI, including his work investigating alleged criminal violations of the copyright act, and a lengthy general description of the practice of unauthorized duplications and sales of copyrighted motion pictures.
The parts of the affidavit relevant to the present inquiry state:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bates v. City of Ft. Wayne, Ind.
...it has been held that such corroboration shows that the informant is reliable within the meaning of Aguilar." United States v. Stevens, 543 F.Supp. 929, 936 (N.D.Ill. 1982). See also United States v. Ward, 703 F.2d 1058, 1061 (8th Cir.1983). The court concludes the veracity prong of the Agu......
-
United States ex rel. Bradley v. Hartigan
...custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. See United States v. Stephens, 543 F.Supp. 929, 940 (N.D.Ill.1982). The Fifth Amendment privilege protects against compelled self-incrimination; before a Fifth Amendment violation ca......
-
Al-Mustafa Irshad v. Spann
......AL-MUSTAFA IRSHAD, Plaintiff,. v. H. G. SPANN, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 81-0456-R. United" States District Court, E. D. Virginia, Richmond Division. July 19, 1982.543 F. Supp. 923 \xC2"......
-
Groves v. Cox
...559 F. Supp. 772. David William GROVES. v. J.D. COX, Supt., et al. Civ. A. No. 80-0158-R. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. March 16, 1983. David ......