-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
1/125
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ))
vs. ) Case No. 07-20124-01/0
)CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS )
and )
GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS, ))
Defendants. ))
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
The United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel,
opposition to the defendants Joint Motion to Suppress Evidence filed July
their motion, the defendants seek an order of the Court suppressing evid
pursuant to search warrants issued on November 30, 2005, and executed o
2, 2005, and evidence seized pursuant to search warrants issued on July 5
2006, for a residence located at 1104 Andover Street, and a business loc
Massachusetts Street, both in Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Spe
defendants raise three claims: first that there was insufficient probable cause
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
2/125
2006, were based upon on evidence that was the fruit of the poisonous tree be
based on evidence illegally seized from the first warrants executed on Decem
(Doc. 190 at pp 9-11). The defendants request that all evidence seized durin
searches be suppressed. As the following discussion will establish, none of 1
are meritorious and the motion to suppress should be denied in its entirety.
I. First Search Warrant for 1104 Andover
In the search warrant affidavit, Officer Mickey Rantz of the Lawren
Police Department, provided certain information that established probable cau
the residence at 1104 Andover Street, Lawrence, Kansas, for evidence relatin
crime of receiving stolen property in violation of KSA 21-3701 (A)(4) and to
offenses of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and wire fraud in vio
U.S.C. 1343. The defendants do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidenc
conduct by the defendant, Carrie Neighbors, that formed the basis for the sea
defendants residence on Andover Street and of their business establishmen
House store at 1904 Massachusetts Street, Lawrence, Kansas. (In the cas
court the defendants concede that the affidavit for the first search executed o
2, 2005, would satisfy the probable cause requirements and nexus for the s
Yellow House store.) (Doc. 190 at p. 7) The same information was provided
judge with respect to the search of the residence on Andover Street. Instead
to suppress is premised on their claim that the information obtained from tw
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
3/125
believe that evidence of the crimes described in the affidavit would be found at
residence.
A. Probable Cause Existed to Issue the Search Warrant.
In this case, probable cause clearly existed to justify the issuance o
warrant for the first search warrant issued on December 2, 2005, for the resid
Andover. A copy of that affidavit and the warrant for the search of the re
attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Courts in this District have stated on several occasions that a dete
probable cause by a neutral judge or magistrate is to be accorded great defe
United States v. Reno, 196 F.Supp.2d 1150, 1157 (D.Kan. 2002) (citing Uni
Finnigin, 113 F.3d 1182, 1185 (10th Cir. 1997)); see also, United States v. Do
WL 121951, *3 (D.Kan., decided Jan. 12, 2001). They have also stated tha
In deciding a suppression motion based upon the asserted fail
the affidavits to provide probable cause for the warrant, the reviewingmust remember that the magistrate is permitted to draw reasoinferences from the affidavits. . . See United States v. Edmonson, 9621535, 1540 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Peveto, 881 F.2d 844(10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 943 (1989). When reviewmagistrate's issuance of a search warrant the court must determine whthe magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cexisted. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U .S. 213, 236 (1983).
United States v. Pierce, 2000 WL 821386, *1 (D.Kan. 2000).
According to Gates, supra, the test to be employed by a reviewing
totality of the circumstances, because [p]robable cause is a fluid concept tu
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
C C O
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
4/125
Appeals has stated that [t]he affidavit should be considered in a com
nontechnical manner. Edmonson, 962 F.3d at 1540 (quoting United State
687 F.2d 1348, 1355 (10th Cir. 1982)).
After a practical, common-sense review of the facts asserted in the A
a warrant to search the residence on Andover Street, Judge Steven Six of the
of Douglas County found probable cause for the issuance of the wa
determination of probable cause must be given great deference, and should b
only if lacking a "substantial basis."Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236. The Su
instructs that close calls regarding probable cause determinations should be
favor of the issuing magistrate judge. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.
(1984)(per curiam). Furthermore, when reviewing the denial of a motion to su
circuit] court considers the totality of the circumstances and views the evidenc
most favorable to the government. United States v. Colonna, 360 F.3d 116
Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Higgins, 282 F.3d 1261, 1269 (10 Cir. th
According to the United States Constitution, a valid search must be
warrant which was issued on the basis of probable cause. U.S. Const. Ame
proponent of the motion to suppress bears the burden of demonstrating th
probable cause to issue the warrant was not shown. SeeUnited States v. Ma
1269, 1274 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Carr, 939 F.2d 1442, 144
1991), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1007 (1994); United States v. Moore, 22 F.3d 24
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
C 2 07 20124 CM JPO D t 197 Fil d 08/05/2009 P
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
5/125
Probable cause requires a nexus between suspected criminal activity a
to be searched. United States v. Rowland, 145 F.3d 1194, 1203-1204 (10t
Probable cause to issue a search warrant exists when the supporting affida
sufficient facts that would lead a prudent person to believe that a search of th
premises would uncover contraband or evidence of a crime. Id. (citing Uni
Burns, 624 F.2d 95, 99 (10th Cir. 1980). To establish the required nexus,
supporting the search warrant need not contain direct evidence or personal kn
the items sought are located at the place to be searched. Rather, the issuin
judge may draw reasonable inferences from the material provided in
application. United States v. Rosand, 145 F.3d at 1205.
The Government respectfully submits that the information contained in
when considered in combination with the reasonable inferences Judge Six wa
draw from that information, provided the judge with probable cause to believ
sought might be found at the residence. In addition, the trash pull on Novemb
produced numerous documents, many of which bore the business address o
House Store at 1904 Massachusetts St., Lawrence, Kansas, relating to t
shipping of items. (Exhibit 1 at p. 20.) The evidence from that trash pu
sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that books, record shee
check/check ledgers, eBay documents and other documentation recording the
and possession of items be sold or purchased by or through the business loc
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
Case 2:07 cr 20124 CM JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
6/125
A subsequent trash pull on November 30, 2005, confirmed that
additional document pertaining to the sale and/or shipment of items by the Y
Store on Massachusetts had been transferred to the Andover residence. (E
31). That fact, considered together with the evidence recovered from the N
trash pull, gave rise to the reasonable inference that the Yellow House owner
documents relating to the Yellow House business to the residence on Andove
be found at that location. SeeUnited States v. Berrocal, 232 F.3d 902, 2000 W
*2 (10th Cir. 2000) (Probable cause established even though court rel
information from a citizen informant and evidence obtained from a single tra
Viewing the evidence contained in the affidavit for the first search wa
residence at 1104 Andover Street in the light most favorable to the governme
that, under the totality of the circumstances, there was a substantial basis for
conclusion that probable cause existed and that conclusion is to be acc
deference. According Judge Sixs determination the deference it deserves, un
presented here, defendants challenges to the probable cause contained
affidavit for 1104 Andover Street should be overruled and denied.
B. Good Faith
Even if the affidavit fails to establish probable cause, the court shou
good faith exception to the exclusionary rule as set forth in United States v. Le
897, reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1250 (1984). In Leon, the Court reasoned that wh
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
7/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
8/125
day at the Yellow House business property grossly exceeded the scope of
which was seized. This claim is without merit.2
The proponent of a motion to suppress bears the burden of proof. U
v. Moore, 22 F.3d 241, 243 (10th Cir. 1994). The defendants fail to artic
Motion to Suppress which evidence they contend was improperly seized by a
application of the terms of these warrants. Consequently, they have not su
burden of proof on this issue. Furthermore, the government respectfully su
review of the information in the affidavit and the return establishes that they ca
that burden.
A. Piggy back warrant of December 2, 2005 for Andover pr
Defendants next argue that the executions of the second search war
residence and the business executed December 2, 2005, were over-broad
suppression of all evidence seized at that time. (Doc. 190 at pp. 9-11). Thes
without merit.
1. Warrant was sufficiently particularized
While inside the residence executing the first search warrant for t
property on December 2, 2005, the agents discovered a hidden room
defendants bedroom that contained a marijuana grow operation. It was
apparent to the experienced searching officers that the plants were marijuana,
probable cause to seize them as contraband. Because the marijuana
Case 2:07 cr 20124 CM JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
9/125
unrelated to the crimes listed in the affidavit in support of the first warrant for th
in an abundance of caution the officers applied for and obtained the second
warrant which authorized them to seize various items of evidence relating to th
grow operation. (Exhibit 2, Affidavit and Piggy Back Search Warrant for 11
attached)
The items that the piggy back search warrant for 1104 Andover Stree
the agents to seize included:
1. Marijuana, marijuana plants, and marijuana seeds.
2. Plastic baggies, scales, and other drug paraphernalia used cultivation, processing, use and possession of the above ment
drug(s).
3. Any books, record sheets, ledgers and other documentation recthe sale, delivery and possession of the above mentioned drug
4. Physical property to include but not limited to, items that appeaitems that are in their original packaging, and items with their orsale tag(s) attached.
5. New and discarded packaging material used to ship and reitems.
(Exhibit 2, at p. 6.) Because the agents had unexpectedly observed new, labe
items of merchandise and packaging materials at the residence that matched
to have been stolen, they included a request to search for and seize new phys
as described in the warrant. Thereafter, with few exceptions, only items co
first warrant and this piggy back warrant were seized at the residence on D
Case 2:07 cr 20124 CM JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pa
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
10/125
Custody Sheet for search of Andover residence on December 2, 2005, Item
48, 49, 50, 51 and 52) , 11 firearms and ammunition (Item Nos. 56, 57, 58, 593
63, 64, 65, 66), and a prescription pill bottle with drugs dispensed in the name
Reyes. (Item No. 67). These items were seized because the officers had pro
to believe that they were contraband or were evidence of a crime.
When determining the admissibility of evidence seized in plain view,
have required the government to satisfy a three-prong test: (1) the officer wa
a position from which to view the object seized in plain view; (2) the object's
character was immediately apparent -- i.e. the officer had probable cause to
object was contraband or evidence of a crime; and (3) the officer had a la
access to the object itself." United States v. Soussi, 29 F.3d 565, 570 (10t
quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990);see also United Sta
966 F.2d 398, 400 (8th Cir.), cert. denied___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 502 (
defendants do not claim that the officers were not lawfully in a position to view
or that they did not have a lawful right of access to the object itself.
The "immediately apparent" standard does not require that a "police o
that certain items are contraband or evidence of a crime." Texas v. Brown, 4
741 (1983). Rather, it requires "probable cause to associate the property
activity." Id., 460 U.S. at 741-42 (emphasis deleted) (citations omitted). Pro
demands not that an officer be "sure" or "certain" but only that the facts a
g
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
11/125
reasonably cautious man would warrant a belief "that certain items may be co
stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime." Id., at 742.
Furthermore, [I]tems named in an impermissibly broad portion of a w
nevertheless be seized pursuant to the plain view doctrine so long as the g
plain view seizure scrupulously adheres to the three-prong Horton test. Uni
Soussi, 29 F.3d at 572.
During the investigation, the officers had been informed that on sever
stolen bicycles had been recovered at the Yellow House Store. (See Exhibit
10.) The officers also knew that the officers searching the store on Dece
verified that a bicycle found at the Yellow House Store had been stolen and t
seized it as evidence and as contraband. That information gave rise to the
inference on the part of the officers searching the residence that the used b
being kept in the basement of the residence rather than in the store where m
hand merchandise could be found, because the defendants knew that they
and did not want them in a place open to the public where they could be loca
officers and confiscated for return to the rightful owners. Under these circ
"probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity was immediat
to the searching officers and they acted reasonably when they determined tha
were contraband and evidence of the crime of receiving stolen property.
The firearms were clearly contraband because they were found in clo
g
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
12/125
under both state and federal criminal statutes from possessing firearms. (Se
4204(1) and 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3)). Finally, the drugs in the pill bottle dispe
name of Anthony Reyes were possessed in violation of state and federal crim
prohibiting the possession of medications without a proper medical p
Clearly, the warrants were sufficiently particularized to provide the
guidance to the seizing agent about what items could properly be seized. Th
items arguably not covered by the warrant was done because they were in pl
there was probable cause to believe that the items were contraband or evide
they were similar in kind to stolen property referenced in the affidavit. Given
it is clear that the second search warrant was not overly broad and that the age
executed the search of the residence on Andover on December 2, 2005, b
agents were clearly able to determine which items the warrant authorized th
The other items seized constituted contraband or evidence of a crime found i
Consequently, defendants claims that the search of the residence on Decem
pursuant to the warrants was overly broad is without merit and the motion to s
items seized from that location on that date should be denied.
2. Severability
Assuming, arguendo, that the Court determines that the provision of th
warrant that authorized the agents to seize [p]hysical property to include bu
to, items that appear new, items that are in their original packaging, and ite
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
13/125
sufficiently particularized, distinguishable from the invalid portions and up the greater part of the warrant,(citation omitted) we agree with the d
court that severance was appropriate in this case. Under the sevedoctrine, evidence seized pursuant to the invalid portions of the warrantbe suppressed, but evidence seized pursuant to the valid portions owarrant or lawfully seized during the execution of the valid portioadmissible.
United States v. Sells, 463 F.3d 1148, 1161 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Unit
Naugle, 997 F.2d 819, 822-23 (10th Cir. 1993) (Doctrine of severability app
portions of the warrant are sufficiently particularized, distinguishable from
portions, and make up the greater part of the warrant). The holding in Naug
more generously characterized to prohibit severability only when the valid po
warrant is not substantial,
expressed not in terms of what was seized but rather in terms of what sand seizure would have been permissible if the warrant had only nthose items as to which probable cause was established. (footomitted). Accordingly, we reject the proposition that the extent of the asearch or the number of items seized is the relevant criteria to detewhether the valid portions of the warrant make up the greater part warrant.
United States v. Sells, 463 F.3d at 1159. The greater part of the warra
focuses on the warrant itself rather than upon an analysis of the items act
during the search. Id.
In this case, the valid parts of both warrants for the Andover residence
December 2, 2005 are clearly distinguishable from the one provision in the
warrant that could arguably be invalid and the valid portions make up the gr
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
14/125
broad, only evidence seized pursuant to that provision should be suppre
evidence is easily distinguishable from that evidence that was seized und
portions of the warrants and included seizure of documents listed in the first se
and for marijuana and drug-related items and packaging .
B. Search of Yellow House business on December 2, 2005.
1. Items seized pursuant to the search warrant.
The defendants next claim that the evidence seized at the Yellow Hou
December 2, 2005, should be suppressed because the officers grossly e
scope of the property that was to be seized. As before, they do not identify
they claim were improperly seized or how the scope of the warrant was
Consequently, the United States again asserts that failure to do so causes thi
because the defendants have not satisfied their burden. In an abundance
however, the United States will address what it believes are the issues ra
defendants motion to suppress the search of the business in December, 20
A review of the warrant in question reveals that the warrant authoriz
on to the Yellow House property was drawn with particularity. The items tha
warrant authorized the agents to seize included:
Any book, record sheets, receipts, checks/check ledgers, eBay documand other documentation recording the sale, delivery and possessitems being sold or purchased by or through the business located atMassachusetts, including any: CPUs, floppy disks, hard disks, or any means of storing electronic date. The data stored on any comput
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
15/125
Items that were purchased by Carrie Neighbors during the three da4
mentioned in the affidavit were listed with particularity in the search warrant.
(Items from sale on 11/07/2005)... Items from sale of 11/18/2005) ... (from sale on 11/29/2005).4
(Exhibit 1 at p. 35.) The specificity of the items authorized to be seized clearly
that the warrant itself was not overly broad and it legally justified the seizure
items that fall within the scope of the warrant. Those items include all of the
seized at the business on December 2, 2005, the devices capable of storing d
items of merchandise that were purchased by Carrie Neighbors from th
11/07/2005, 11/18/2005 and 11/29/2005, dates on which Carrie Neighbors
knowledge that the seller claimed the property had been swiped or nabbe
1 at pp. 17, 24.)
2. Items in plain view seized pursuant to probable cause
The defendants argue that the number of items seized by the officers t
specifically authorized to be seized under the warrant converted what may
valid search into a general search requiring suppression of all of the evidence
business on December 2, 2005. This claim is without merit because the
narrowly drawn and the additional items not covered by the warrant consi
personal property were seized because the agents found them in plain vi
probable cause to believe each was contraband or evidence of a crime.
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
16/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
17/125
of a crime, and as the following discussion will establish, those grounds
justified the seizure of the items of merchandise.
As stated previously, probable cause demands not that an officer
"certain" but only that the facts available to a reasonably cautious man wou
belief "that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as e
crime." Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 742, 103 S. Ct. at 1543; see alsoUni
Giannetta, 909 F.2d 571, 578-79 (1st Cir. 1990) (agent need not be convinc
reasonable doubt, but merely have probable cause to believe evidence was in
A review of the information in the possession of the officers searching the Y
Store on December 2, 2005 and the types of evidence seized as contraband
or a crime will establish that their decision to seize the items of merch
supported by probable cause.
The Evidence Custody Sheet for the search of the store on Decem
(attached as Exhibit 4), reveals that the evidence seized as contraband or e
crime fell within several specific categories which included: cameras, electroni
clothing, tools, musical instruments, and a few miscellaneous new item
perfume/cologne and earring sets. All of the items seized appeared to be n
merchandise - the vast majority of the items still had the store tags attache
original packaging - and were similar in nature to the types of new stolen ite
officers knew had been recently purchased by the Yellow House. The merc6
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
18/125
it had been comingled with other items that the officers knew had been rep
Carrie Neighbors as stolen property before she purchased them.
. Electronics: The officers seized numerous electronic items that we
items sold to Carrie Neighbors by the undercover officer in November, 20
occasions. Carrie Neighbors had purchased numerous new items from the7
after he had told her that the items he was selling had been swiped or na
back of a truck. Those items consisted of various types of electronic equipme
I-Pod Nanos (Ex. 1 at p. 16), Apple I-Pod Shuffles (Ex. 1 at 29, an Apple i-Po
Edition (Ex. 1 at p. 29), a Sonicare toothbrush (Ex. 1 at p. 16), i-Pod station
16,), a Kitchen Aid mixer (Ex. 1 at p. 23), DVD players (Ex. 1 at 16, 29), a digit
(Ex. 1 at p. 29), and a DVD system. (Ex. 1 at 29).
In addition to the various types of electronics sold to Carrie Neighbors o
referenced dates, the officers also knew that other types of stolen new ele
been sold to Carrie Neighbors. They knew that an e-Bay vendor identify
yellowhair-bargains contained a greeting from a person named Carrie Neigh
a Super Target investigator had viewed the web site and found postings for
electronic merchandise that was similar to types of merchandise that were m
the Lawrence, Kansas, Super Target such as Kitchen Aid mixers, vacuum c
other electronic items. (Ex. 1 at p. 5) Nicolle Beach had admitted to stealin
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
19/125
to Carrie Neighbors vacuum cleaners from the Lawrence, Kansas, Super Ta
stealing and selling a computer and a Kitchen Aid mixer to Carrie Neighbors
4, 6-7) Beach also told the officers that Carrie Neighbors paid more money
unopened boxes, that Carrie Neighbors told her, in sum or substance,
Neighbors had been required to return two of the stolen vacuums sold at Yell
Beach because they had been sitting out when the police came to inquire abo
that she had not returned the Kitchen Aid mixer because it had not been in the
the officer came to investigate. (Ex. 1 a p.7).
The officers also knew that a stolen computer had been recovered a
House Store on November14, 2003 (Ex. 1 at p. 8), and that on October 27, 2
microsystem stereo similar to one stolen from a Super Target that day had
for sale on the yellowhair-bargains eBay site. (Ex. 1 at pp. 9 -10). All of this
clearly provided probable cause for the officers to believe that the new elec
seized on December 2, 2005, were either stolen or were evidence of the afo
crimes.
Clothing
Many of the items in plain view were pieces of clothing that still had th
on them. These items were seized because the officers knew that an emp9
store had been interviewed on November 16, 2005, and had said, in sum or su
the whole business looked like a theft ring (Ex. 1 at p. 21), that he believed th
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
20/125
Lately, were coming into the Yellow House all day selling brand new clothes, m
(Ex. 1 at p. 21). Averitt and Lately were well known to the Lawrence Police De
prolific shop lifters. Numerous items of new clothing consisting of twenty
jeans, numerous shirts, gloves and hats, still bearing the merchants stor
discovered in the Yellow House when the officers executed the warrant.
officers had probable cause to believe that the new clothes were contraband a
of the crimes under investigation and seizure of those items was lawful.
Cameras:
The officers seized nine new cameras during the search of the Yellow
Store, seven of which were Sony Cybershot brand cameras and two were 10
Share cameras. The sheer number of new Sony Cybershot cameras cons
sufficient to cause a reasonably cautious man to believe that those ite
contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime." Texas v. Bro
at 742, 103 S. Ct. at 1543. Additionally, the officers knew that the undercove
sold two Fuji cameras to Carrie Neighbors on November 18, 2005, after telling
items he was selling her that day had been swiped from an overstock bin. (E
Clearly, the seizure of the new cameras was based on probable cause and w
Tools
Eight new tool sets were seized during the search which included fo11
DeWalt tools and two sets of Husky tools. The officers knew that th
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
21/125
interviewed on November 16, 2005, had said that two guys were constantl
new tools like DeWalt brand tools. (Ex. 1 at p. 21). Carrie Neighbors co
information on November 29, 2005, during a discussion with the undercover
his desire to purchase a Husky brand tool set that he saw in the store th
Neighbors said that the tool sets that were out had already been sold but th
brought her tools every week or two. She went on to say that he is a truck dri
able to get DeWalt and Husky tools. C. Neighbors further stated that the guy
the tools, depending on what is available, off of his truck shipments and tha
buy the overstock. (Ex. 1 at p. 30) Clearly, the information provided by the e
confirmed by Carrie Neighbors was sufficient to establish probable for the s
new tools as evidence of the crimes under investigation and contraband.
Musical Instruments
The officers seized a Dean electric guitar because the officers knew th12
2005, the Lawrence Police Department had determined that stolen credit car
used to purchase musical instruments including flutes, trumpets and clarinets,
stores in Lawrence, Kansas. The person who picked up the instruments was
employees of the stores as Stacy Barnes Catlett. (Ex. 1 at p. 9). The Y
employee reported during his interview on November 16, 2005, that Stacey B
had come in to the Yellow House Store a few weeks earlier selling lots o
instruments such as flutes and clarinets. He stated that Carrie Neighbors ha
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
22/125
newspaper and then she stopped buying from Barnes Catlett. (Ex. 1 at p
information provided sufficient probable cause to justify the seizure of the
electric guitar on December 2, 2005.
Miscellaneous items
The officer seized a few items that had not been previously identified
of stolen items purchased by Carrie Neighbors. Because these items w13
were comingled in the back closet with other new items, including items p
Carrie Neighbors from the undercover officer believing them to have been
incriminatory nature of those miscellaneous items was immediately apparent.
States v. Hamie, 165 F.3d 80, 83 (1st Cir. 1999) (once agent came across fa
and credit cards, incriminatory nature of any other items in those nam
immediately apparent to the agent.) Consequently, seizure of these items wa
Here, the search and seizures were reasonable because the officers
items that were covered by the warrant or which they reasonably believed were
or evidence based upon information they possessed when they entered the
execute the warrant. With few exceptions, all of the seized items th
enumerated in the search warrant were new, as evidenced either by in-tact
by original packaging, and all were found in a closet in the back of the store
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
23/125
The one used item that was seized was a bicycle. Police officers h14
purchased from the affiant by Carrie Neighbors, which she believed had be
had been co-mingled with the other new merchandise.
14
Based on the foregoing, the United States respectfully submits th
evidence collected either at the Yellow House Store or at the residence w
seized, either because it was seized pursuant to the terms of three valid sea
or because it was contraband or evidence of the crimes under investigation
plain view when discovered.
3. Severability
A search is not invalidated in its entirety merely because some seizedwere not identified in the warrant. See United States v. Hargus, 128
1358, 1363 (10th Cir. 1997). Rather, invalidation of an entire search bon a seizure of items not named in the warrant is an extraordinary remthat should be used only when the violations of the warrants requiremare so extreme that the search is essentially transformed intimpermissible general search. United State v. Chen, 979 F.2d 714, 71Cir. 1992). Put another way, searching officers may be said to flagrantly disregarded the terms of a warrant when they engaindiscriminate fishing for evidence. Id.
United States v. Robinson, 275 F.3d 371, 381-82 (9 Cir. 2001). In thth
searching officers did not engage in an indiscriminate fishing expedition.
seized only items from among many pieces of merchandise that reasonably
be new and of the type that they knew from their earlier investigation were ofte
by Carrie Neighbors from persons who had stolen them. The vast majority o
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
24/125
Yellow House on December 2, 2005, were not seized. The officers cannot be
turned their search in to a general one by flagrantly disregarding the terms o
for the search of the Yellow House store. Consequently, the extraordinary re
suppression is not warranted.
Here, should the court determine that there was insufficient probable ca
the items of merchandise, it should exercise its discretion and order the su
only those items of merchandise that were not authorized to be seized in the w
United States v. Naugle, 997 F.2d at 822-23 (10th Cir.1993) (Doctrine of
applies if valid portions of the warrant are sufficiently particularized, distingu
the invalid portions, and make up the greater part of the warrant). The entire
the search of the Yellow House Store on December 2, 2005 was valid so if a
is suppressed, the United States respectfully submits that it should include o
of new merchandise recovered on December 2, 2005.
C. Warrants for Searches on July 7, 2005 were Valid
Finally, the defendants claim that the two federal search warrants in C
M-8075-01-JPO and 06-M-8075-02-JPO and the piggy back state search wa
5, attached) that issued on July 7, 2006, were based on evidence that was th
poisonous tree because it was obtained during allegedly illegal searches on D
2005. As the foregoing discussion establishes, the searches and seizures o
the Yellow House Store and at the Andover residence in December, 2005, we
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
25/125
The applications for the warrants that issued on November 30, 20015
attached to each of the affidavits for the federal search warrants, but the infthose documents was obtained prior to and independently of the searches o
finding does not require suppression of the evidence seized during the
searches.
An affidavit containing erroneous or unconstitutionally obtained informinvalidates a warrant if that information was crucial to establishing procause. United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 179 104 S.Ct. 3296, 82 L.530 (1984). If however, the affidavit contained sufficient accurauntainted information, the warrant is nevertheless valid. Id.
United States v. Morgan, 106 Fed.Appx 694, 2005 WL 3475864 *3 (C.A.10(
With respect to the affidavits submitted for the three warrants issue
2006, each contained sufficient untainted information to establish probable
evidence of a crime or contraband would be found at the Yellow House St
Andover residence. The evidence that the defendants contest was f
applications for the federal warrants at paragraphs 9 - 12 which referred to s
of stolen property that were recovered during the December searches of the s
residence and the results of law enforcement review of certain document
during the December searches. However, even if all information obtain15
December searches, is excised from the July 6 affidavits, the remainin
information overwhelming supports the probable cause finding for all three
warrants. Id.
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
26/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
27/125
s/Terra D. MoreheadTERRA D. MOREHEAD KS S.Ct #
Assistant United States Attorney500 State Avenue, Suite 360Kansas City, Kansas 66101(913) 551-6730 (telephone)(913) 551-6541 (facsimile)E-mail: [email protected]
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197 Filed 08/05/2009 Pag
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
28/125
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 5th day of August, 2009, the foregoing was e
filed with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send
electronic filing to the following:
John Duma303 E. PoplarOlathe, KS 66061
Attorney for Defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors
Cheryl A. PilateMorgan Pilate LLC142 N. CherryOlathe, KS 66061
Attorney for Defendant Guy Madison Neighbors
I further certify that on this date the foregoing document and the notice
filing were mailed by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participan
None
s/Marietta ParkerAssistant United States Attorney
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
29/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
30/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
31/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
32/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
33/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
34/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 7 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
35/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 8 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
36/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 9 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
37/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 10 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
38/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 11 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
39/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 12 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
40/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 13 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
41/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 14 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
42/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 15 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
43/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 16 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
44/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 17 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
45/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 18 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
46/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 19 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
47/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 20 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
48/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 21 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
49/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 22 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
50/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 23 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
51/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 24 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
52/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 25 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
53/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 26 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
54/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 27 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
55/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 28 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
56/125
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
57/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 30 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
58/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 31 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
59/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 32 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
60/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 33 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
61/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 34 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
62/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 35 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
63/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 36 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
64/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 37 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
65/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 38 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
66/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 39 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
67/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-2 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 40 of 40
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
68/125
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
69/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-3 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
70/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-3 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
71/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-3 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
72/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-3 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
73/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-3 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
74/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-3 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 7 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
75/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-3 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 8 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
76/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
77/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
78/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
79/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
80/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
81/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
82/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 7 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
83/125
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
84/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 9 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
85/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 10 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
86/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 11 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
87/125
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
88/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 13 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
89/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 14 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
90/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 15 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
91/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 16 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
92/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 17 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
93/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-4 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 18 of 18
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
94/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
95/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
96/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
97/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
98/125
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
99/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
100/125
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
101/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 8 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
102/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 9 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
103/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 10 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
104/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 11 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
105/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 12 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
106/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 13 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
107/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 14 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
108/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 15 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
109/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 16 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
110/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 17 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
111/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 18 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
112/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 19 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
113/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 20 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
114/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 21 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
115/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 22 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
116/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-5 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 23 of 23
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
117/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-6 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
118/125
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
119/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-6 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
120/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-6 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
121/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-6 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
122/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-6 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
123/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-6 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 7 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
124/125
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 197-6 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 8 of 8
-
8/14/2019 08-5-09 Government Response Motion to Suppress
125/125