Opinion
20-cr-0464 (LJL)
03-19-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. MALIK DEJESUS, Defendant.
ORDER
:
Defendant Malik DeJesus moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3) and 41(f), to suppress physical evidence against him obtained as a result of a search and seizure conducted by his New York State Parole officer and the New York City Police Department on February 20, 2020. At the time of the search, DeJesus was subject to supervision on parole from his state court conviction. DeJesus claims that the evidence, which was obtained as a result of the search and of a subsequent search pursuant to a search warrant, was the fruit of an unconstitutional search of his apartment.
The parties agree that the appropriate standards are those forth in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), United States v. Barner, 666 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2012), United States v. Grimes, 225 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2000), and People v. Huntley, 371 N.E.2d 794 (N.Y. 1977). The question of whether the search is reasonable turns on "whether the conduct of the parole officer was rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer's duty." Barner, 666 F.3d at 84 (quoting Huntley, 371 N.E.2d at 797). A defendant is entitled to a hearing if the papers raise a "sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural" factual basis for the motion. United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Defendant has provided such a basis for his motion.
Accordingly, the Court grants the portion of the motion requesting a suppression hearing. Dkt. No. 14. The Court will hold the hearing on April 7, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
SO ORDERED. Dated: March 19, 2021
New York, New York
/s/_________
LEWIS J. LIMAN
United States District Judge