Opinion
Case No. 07-cr-30118-DRH.
November 14, 2007
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court are several pretrial motions, filed by defendant Arron Whitt (Docs. 13-17), to which the Government has filed its Response (Doc. 18). The Court will now address Defendant's motions in the order in which they were filed.
1. Motion to Suppress Tape Recorded Telephone Conversations
The first motion is Defendant's Motion to Suppress Tape Recorded Telephone Conversations Between Defendant and Confidential Source (Doc. 13). Defendant seeks to suppress these recorded conversations because he did not consent to the recording and states there is no evidence the confidential source ("CS") consented either. Without consent, Defendant asserts such recording is a violation of his rights, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c), which makes it unlawful to intercept a wire or oral communication without the prior consent of at least one party to the communication. Defendant also claims this is a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.
The Government Responds, stating that prior to the recording of any calls, the CS, in cooperation with the DEA, gave prior consent to the recording of the calls between the CS and Defendant. Therefore, there is no 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c) violation. Further, the Government asserts that Defendant's statements recorded in the calls were not "compelled statements" and therefore, does not fall within the protective ambit of the Fifth Amendment, as Defendant was neither charged nor in custody at the time (Doc. 18, p. 2, citing Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodward , 523 U.S. 272, 286 (1998); United States v. Cope , 312 F.3d 757, 773 (6th Cir. 2002); Illinois v. Perkins , 296 U.S. 292 (1990)).
Because the Government obtained prior consent of at least one party to the recorded conversations — the CS — there has been no violation under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c). Further, the Court also finds there is no Fifth Amendment violation because Defendant's statements made in the recorded conversations are not considered to be "compelled statements." See United States v. Craig , 573 F.2d 455 (1977) (rejecting Defendant's contention in his motion to suppress that his recorded conversations with informant violated Defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, as informant had given his prior consent to record conversations). Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Tape Recorded Telephone Conversations (Doc. 13) is DENIED.
2. Motion to Suppress Evidence
Next, the Court turns to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 14). In this Motion, Defendant seeks to suppress both narcotics (including cocaine) and currency seized by law enforcement officers, on the basis that the searches and seizures were unreasonable and in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendant further asserts that said evidence was seized without valid warrants. The Government, responding, notes that Defendant fails to identify the particular narcotics or money referred to by his Motion. It also believes it acted properly and in accordance with the law. As for the searches and seizures, the Government states that they were conducted pursuant to search warrants authorized by a United States Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of Illinois, who determined probable cause existed to issue the warrants. Executing three of the four authorized search warrants, the DEA seized a total of approximately 2 kilograms of cocaine and approximately $9,000.00 (Doc. 18, pp. 2-3).
As the Government correctly states, a Judge's decision to issue a warrant is reviewed with "great deference" (Doc. 18, p. 3, citing Ornelas v. United States. , 517 U.S. 690, 698-99 (1996)). The Court does not see valid reason to question the Magistrate Judge's decision at this time. Further, Defendant's Motion fails to supply the Court with any specific factual details or legal argument, but rather, sounds of a boilerplate motion which the Court does not believe is sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing. The Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 14) is therefore DENIED.
3. Motion for Disclosure of the Identity and Location of the Confidential Informant
4. Motion to Require Prosecution to Reveal Agreements or Concessions with Witnesses
MOOT. MOOT. Jencks United States v. Harris , 542 F.2d 1283, 1292-93 (7th Cir. 1976) Jencks United States v. Morrison , 946 F.2d 484, 494-95 (7th Cir. 1991) DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.