US v. Conley
| Decision Date | 01 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 91-178. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. John F. "Duffy" CONLEY, William C. Curtin, Sheila F. Smith, John Francis "Jack" Conley, Thomas "Bud" McGrath, Mark A. Abbott, Thomas Rossi, William Steinhart, Roberta Fleagle, Robin Spratt, Monica C. Kail, William J. Reed, Joanne T. Smith, Kenneth "Ron" Goodwin, Lawrence N. "Neudy" Demino, Sr., Christopher "Chris" Kail, Joseph A. Devita, Frank Garofalo, Thomas D. Ciocco, Michael Sukaly, Phillip M. "Mike" Ferrell, Anestos "Naz" Rodites, and William E. Rusin, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Frederick W. Thieman, U.S. Atty., W.D.Pa., James R. Wilson, Asst. U.S. Atty., William D. Braun, Crim. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for plaintiff.
James Wymard, William Difenderfer, Anthony Mariani, Ellen Viakley, Gary Gerson, Caroline M. Roberto, Joel Johnston, Stanley Greenfield, Martha Bailor, Ray Radakovich, Carmen Martucci, Lee Markovitz, Edward J. Osterman, William Acker, Foster Stewart, Joseph Kanfoush, Carl Max Janavitz, Raymond M. Maloney, John Goodrich, Gary B. Zimmerman, Vincent Baginski, John Zagari, Pittsburgh, PA, for defendants.
In prior proceedings, the Court ruled that Defendant John F. "Duffy" Conley ("Duffy Conley") had Fourth Amendment interests that were implicated by seizures and searches of video poker machines from "locations" — bars, delicatessens, coffee shops, etc. — in which Duffy Conley had no reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Conley, 856 F.Supp. 1010, 1014-1022 (W.D.Pa.1994) (Document No. 801). Specifically, the Court held that Duffy Conley's ownership of the video poker machines, which the Court assumed for purposes of its decision, was an interest protected from unreasonable seizures by the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 16, 18, 23, 856 F.Supp. at 1019, 1020, 1022. The Court indicated that although the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant to seize property in an unprotected area, it does require probable cause to seize without a warrant. The Court presumed that the Government would attempt to show probable cause to seize the machines through the warrants that were in fact issued for the eighty-odd locations. Id. at 18, 856 F.Supp. at 1020 & n. 7. Further, the Court held that Duffy Conley had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the inside compartments of the video poker machines, id. at 16, 19-22, 23-24, 856 F.Supp. at 1022, 1020-1022, 1019, necessitating a valid warrant or warrant-exception before the compartments properly could be invaded by law enforcement personnel.1
Duffy Conley and the Government subsequently stipulated that Duffy Conley, if called, would testify as to his ownership of video poker machines at specific locations and the Government possessed no evidence to contrary. See Document No. 826. The eighty-one challenged raids are listed by date, law enforcement organization primarily involved and location in the Appendices to this Memorandum Opinion.
Before the Court are the September 23, 1988 seizures and subsequent searches of video poker machines pursuant to the eighty-one warrants authorizing searches of locations.2 Also before the Court is Duffy Conley's challenge to the September 23, 1988 search of 3100 Windgap Avenue.
As to the warrants authorizing searches of locations, Duffy Conley avers probable cause to search the locations is lacking within the four corners of the affidavits in support of the warrants. He also contends he is entitled to a Franks hearing because he has made a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavits in support of the warrants intentionally or recklessly contained material falsities and omitted a material fact. The Court concludes the alleged falsities and omissions are not material in that, with the alleged falsities stricken and the alleged omission included, there remains a fair probability that evidence of gambling activity would be found on the searched premises.
As to the search of 3100 Windgap, Duffy Conley contends the affidavit failed to set forth probable cause, the warrants were executed in violation of state law, and the warrants were not issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. None of Duffy Conley's contentions require suppression of the fruits of the Windgap search.
Twenty-six State applications for search warrants were prepared by Trooper William C. Cunningham of the Pennsylvania State Police on September 22, 1988. See Appendix A. Forty-six applications for search warrants were prepared by Detective John Bosetti of the City of Pittsburgh Police on September 22, 1988. See Appendix B. Three search warrants were prepared by Trooper William C. Cunningham of the Pennsylvania State Police on November 9, 1988. See Appendix C. Three search warrants were prepared by Detective John Bosetti of the City of Pittsburgh Police on December 16, 1988. See Appendix D. Finally, three warrants were prepared by Trooper William C. Cunningham of the Pennsylvania State Police on January 27, 1989. See Appendix E. Duffy Conley is stipulated, in essence, to have uncontested ownership of the video poker machines seized and searched pursuant to these warrants. (Document No. 826).
Each of the September 22, 1988 State applications for search warrants contained eight identical pages of "background" information before setting forth the location-specific information in support of probable cause. Specifically, the "background" pages stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Conley, Crim. No. 91-178.
...evidence of such crimes, and/or contraband, sought by the warrants may be found in the places to be searched. Cf. United States v. Conley, 856 F.Supp. 1034, 1045 (W.D.Pa.1994). The Court has reviewed each of the challenged warrants and concludes that the Donnelly affidavit provides probable......
- US v. Conley
-
US v. Conley
...or warrant-exception before the compartments properly could be invaded by law enforcement personnel. See also United States v. Conley, 856 F.Supp. 1034, 1036 (W.D.Pa. 1994) (Document No. 900). Duffy Conley's "standing" is limited; to the extent that the searches and seizures did not involve......