Opinion
05 Cr. 55 (DAB).
January 23, 2006
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court issued a Memorandum and Order on October 27, 2005 in this case, granting a request for a hearing on Defendant Johnny Cortez's motion to suppress evidence found at his apartment, and denying all other requested relief. The Court also issued a Memorandum and Order on December 6, 2005, denying previous Defense counsel's Motion to Reargue. The Court is in receipt of current Defense counsel's Motion to Reargue, received by the Court on January 19, 2006; the Government's letter response to said motion, dated January 20, 2006; Defense counsel's faxed reply, dated today; and the Government's faxed sur-reply, also dated today.
The Court notes that Defendant's interpretation of the Court's October 27, 2005 Memorandum and Order, whereby he states that the decision erroneously "noted that the location of the defendant's vehicle was given by the defendant to interrogating agents `after having been given his Miranda warnings'" is inaccurate. (Def. 1/23/06 Letter at 1.) The decision stated on page two that "According to the sworn affidavit of Special Agent Justin Meadows, Cortez waived his Miranda rights and agreed to answer Agent Meadows' questions, including the location of his vehicle, which he said he had sold." The decision did not say that Defendant revealed where his vehicle was located.
Based on the submissions, it is clear to the Court that the search of Defendant Cortez's apartment had no bearing on the warrant issued to search Defendant's vehicle, and thus the search of the car cannot be considered invalid. Defendant argues in his most recent submission that he "intends to prove at [the] hearing that the agents located the vehicle with the use of his vehicle's keys which they had seized during the illegal search of the apartment." (Def. 1/23/06 Letter at 1-2.) According to the Government in its sur-reply, the agents did not obtain any keys during the search of the apartment, and no keys are listed in the attached Report of Investigation issued after the search. (Gov. 1/23/06 Letter, Ex. A.)
Based on the Court's prior rulings and examination of the record, and based on the lack of a showing of any new evidence that was previously unknown to Defendant (see United States v. Leaver, 358 F. Supp. 2d 273, 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citations omitted)), the Court sees no reason to expand the nature of the suppression hearing. Defendant's motion to renew his suppression motion regarding his vehicle is hereby denied. Accordingly, the suppression hearing regarding the search of Defendant Cortez's apartment shall proceed as scheduled tomorrow, January 24, 2006, at 11:30 a.m.
SO ORDERED.