United States v. Suggs
| Decision Date | 05 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Crim. 19-134 |
| Parties | United States of America, v. Terry Suggs, Jr., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WITH RESEPCT TO THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND OPINION WITH RESPECT TO REQUEST FOR FRANKS HEARING
Pending before the court is a motion to suppress evidence (ECF No 59), and a request for a hearing pursuant to Franks v Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (ECF No. 135), filed by defendant Terry Suggs, Jr. (“defendant” or “Suggs”). Suggs is charged in a two-count criminal indictment with conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute, and possessing with the intent to distribute, 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine and 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii), and 846. (ECF No. 19.) The charges in the indictment are based upon evidence obtained from, among other sources, a confidential informant (“CI”) and law enforcement's investigation of Suggs' codefendant, Jermaine Clark (“Clark”), who pleaded guilty in this case. (ECF No. 157.)
According to Suggs, the evidence against him in this case should be suppressed because law enforcement arrested him and seized a vehicle in which he was allegedly present without warrants or probable cause in violation of his rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Suggs also argues that he is entitled to a hearing pursuant to Franks, because two police officers intentionally and with reckless disregard for the truth omitted material facts from the affidavit of probable cause upon which search warrants were issued for two vehicles in this case. The government argues in response that probable cause existed for Suggs' arrest and, pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, police officers lawfully seized Suggs' vehicle. According to the government, Suggs failed to show he is entitled to a Franks hearing, and, therefore, his request for a hearing should be denied.
For the reasons set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law and the opinion, the court agrees with the government that probable cause existed for Suggs' arrest, the automobile exception applied to the seizure of Suggs' alleged vehicle, and Suggs failed to show that he is entitled to a Franks hearing. The motion to suppress (ECF No. 59) and Suggs' request for a Franks hearing will, therefore, be denied.
On May 8, 2019, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Suggs and Clark charging them with:
(ECF No. 19.)
On July 8, 2019, Suggs' counsel filed a motion to suppress evidence and brief in support of the motion. (ECF Nos. 59-60.) Attached to the brief in support of the motion to suppress were two exhibits: (1) the transcript of the preliminary hearing held in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas; and (2) the search warrant for a gray Subaru with Pennsylvania license plate KBZ3470, including a redacted version of the affidavit of probable cause in support of the warrant. (ECF Nos. 60-1 and 60-2.)
On August 22, 2019, the government filed a response in opposition to Suggs' suppression motion. (ECF No. 70.) On August 30, 2019, Suggs filed a reply brief in support of his suppression motion. (ECF No. 71.) On August 18, 2020, Suggs' new and current counsel filed a motion to amend/correct suppression motion arguing that Suggs was entitled to a hearing pursuant to Franks. (ECF No. 135.)
On May 5, 2021, the court held a suppression hearing. The government presented the testimony of detective Mark Hetherington (“Hetherington”) and entered three exhibits into evidence: (1) Exhibit A-Allegheny County's District Attorney's Office Narcotics Enforcement Team (“DANET”) Investigative Report-Incomplete (ECF No. 70-1); (2) Exhibit B-DANET Investigative Report-Complete (ECF No. 70-2); and (3) Exhibit C-Allegheny County Laboratory Report (ECF No. 70-3).
Suggs entered two exhibits into evidence: (1) the transcript of the preliminary hearing held in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas (Exhibit 1); and (2) the transcript of the detention hearing in this federal case (Exhibit 2). (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 58.)
The court on the record during the suppression hearing granted the motion to amend/correct the suppression motion and permitted the government to file a response in opposition to the motion. The court set a briefing schedule for the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On May 12, 2021, the government filed its response in opposition to the motion to amend/correct and attached to its response a copy of the affidavit of probable cause relied upon for the issuance of a search warrant for a vehicle from which one of the investigating police officers allegedly saw Suggs exit. (ECF Nos. 163 and 163-1.) The court permitted Suggs to file a supplemental brief with respect to the Franks issues raised in the motion to amend/correct, which he filed on July 7, 2021. (ECF No. 175.) On the same day, Suggs filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the motion to suppress. (ECF No. 178.) On July 8, 2021, the government filed its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the motion to suppress. (ECF No. 177.)
After considering the parties' submissions and the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
A. Findings of Fact
FOF 1. Hethertington has been a police officer for the North Versailles Township Police Department for 22 years. (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 9.) He is a member of the DANET. (Id. at 10.)
FOF 2. Hetherington became involved in the investigation of Clark in October 2018. (Id. at 10.)
FOF 3. Ray Bonacci (“Bonacci”), a detective supervisor with the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office and a police officer for 25 years, and other police officers, were also a part of the investigation of Clark. (ECF No. 60-1 at 5.) (The court in this opinion will refer to the police officers, who participated in the investigation, surveillance, and arrest of Clark and Suggs, as the “investigating officers.”).
FOF 4. In October 2018, a confidential informant (“CI”) informed Hetherington and other investigating police officers that he could purchase a large amount of cocaine from a man named “Fats” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 10-11.)
FOF 5. The CI reported that over the course of approximately a year, he purchased “[k]ilos of cocaine” from Fats, who traveled from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to sell cocaine to “multiple customers.” (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 11-12.) The CI paid Fats between $30, 000.00 to $33, 000.00 per kilogram of cocaine. (Id. at 12.)
FOF 6. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is a “source city” for cocaine; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is a “distribution city” for cocaine. (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 14.)
FOF 7. The CI met Fats at a residence on Grant Street in North Braddock, Pennsylvania, to purchase the cocaine. (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 12.)
FOF 8. The CI reported that Fats drove a Chevy Traverse and that Fats “operated vehicles with a trap location or a concealed area to store drugs and money[.]” (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 13, 26.)
FOF 9. The CI provided the investigating officers with Fats' telephone number.[1] The investigating officers used the telephone number to determine[2] that Fats' legal name was “Jermaine Clark.” (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 12-13.)
FOF 10. The investigating officers obtained Clark's driver's license picture and showed it to the CI. The CI confirmed that Clark was Fats. (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 13-14.)
FOF 11. In February 2019, the CI (acting with the investigating officers) via telephone arranged to purchase five kilograms of cocaine from Clark. (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 14.)
FOF 12. Within a few days of the initial telephone call, the investigating officers learned that Clark intended to travel to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to sell the cocaine to the CI on or about February 25 or 26, 2019. (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 15.)
FOF 13. On or about February 24, 2019, the CI called Bonacci and told him that Clark was in Pittsburgh staying at the Westin Hotel. (ECF No. 166 at 16.)
FOF 14. The CI informed Hetherington and other investigating officers that on February 24, 2019, he met with Clark and Clark's cousin at a restaurant. (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 16.)
FOF 15. On February 25, 2019, Hetherington and other investigating officers tried, but failed, to locate Clark's Chevy Traverse. (H.T. 5/5/2021 (ECF No. 166) at 1617.) Bonacci called the CI and asked if “Clark was in his normal vehicle, ” i.e., the Chevy Traverse....
To continue reading
Request your trial