Opinion
Criminal No. RDB-07-0244.
December 18, 2007
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants Timothy Lee Claridy ("Claridy") and Flora Lynette Jones ("Jones") (collectively, "Defendants") have been charged with, inter alia, conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute heroin. The Defendants filed a series of motions including a motion to suppress evidence seized from the execution of a search warrant at 69 Stemmers Run Road in Baltimore County, Maryland on the grounds that the warrant was obtained in violation of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Paper No. 24.) Specifically, they argue that the law enforcement officers in charge of the investigation violated Rule 41(b) by obtaining the search warrant from a Judge of the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City, rather than first determining if a Magistrate Judge of this Court was available. They further argue that this violation was made willfully and deliberately. A suppression hearing was conducted on December 17, 2007, and the parties' submissions and oral arguments have been considered. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
Defendant Claridy filed the actual motion at issue in this Memorandum Opinion, but it is considered to have been raised by both Defendants as they moved to adopt each other's motions ( see Papers No. 26 32) which motions this Court granted ( see Papers No. 28 33).
At the hearing, counsel for the Defendants acknowledged that there was sufficient probable cause set forth in the affidavit to support the issuance of the search warrant.
BACKGROUND
The Baltimore City and Baltimore County Police Departments operate a task force jointly with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") to investigate and prosecute narcotics violations in the Baltimore metropolitan area. Local police officers working on this so-called high-intensity drug trafficking area or "HIDTA" task force are deputized as federal officers. In this case, Detective Keith Gladstone, one such officer on the HIDTA task force officially employed by the Baltimore City Police Department, received information from two confidential informants about three individuals — two of whom were later identified as the Defendants, Timothy Claridy and Flora Jones — who were involved in the distribution of heroin in the 1500 block of Barclay Street in Baltimore, Maryland. Based on this information, the HIDTA task force team conducted surveillance of Claridy and Jones in May of 2007.
The first confidential informant had a track record of providing Detective Gladstone with reliable information for over a year, and the second confidential informant provided information about narcotics trafficking that Detective Gladstone determined to be accurate. Thus, at the motions hearing of December 17, 2007, this Court held that the information supplied by these confidential informants was sufficiently reliable and corroborated to establish probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrant in this case.
On May 16, 2007, Claridy, who drove a green Porsche Cayenne, was observed engaging in what appeared to be hand-to-hand transactions with individuals on foot in the 1500 block of Barclay Street, a known open-air drug market. A third suspect identified by the confidential informants as "Bo" was seen meeting with Claridy on numerous occasions, and the officers believed the meetings to be drug transactions.
On May 17, 2007, Claridy was observed meeting with Jones, who drove a silver Town Country minivan, in the 1500 block of Barclay Street. The officers followed Jones in her car. She drove erratically, running at least one stop sign and one light, which Detective Gladstone knew to be a counter surveillance technique used by drug traffickers based on his 15 years of experience with the police force and three years with the HIDTA task force. Jones drove to the unit block of Stemmers Run Road, where she parked and then exited her vehicle. She made eye contact with Detective Beard of the HIDTA task force, who was on foot, and walked in the vicinity of unit 69. After he left the area, she finally went to unit 69 where she knocked first and then used a key to enter.
On May 18, 2007, Claridy was seen exiting 69 Stemmers Run Road. He walked to the green Porsche, sat inside, and then went back into the residence using a key.
On May 21, 2007, Detective Gladstone applied for warrants to search 69 Stemmers Run Road, the green Porsche Cayenne, and the silver Town Country minivan, as well as the black Acura and residence linked to the third suspect, "Bo." Because he was calling after hours, Detective Gladstone called the Court Commissioner for the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City who advised him to contact District Judge Charles Chiapparelli, who ultimately reviewed and signed the warrants.
The next day, on May 22, 2007, Gladstone and a team of HIDTA members, including both local officers deputized as federal officers as well as at least one DEA agent, went to 69 Stemmers Run Road around 7:00 a.m. to execute the warrants. They observed Claridy leaving the residence, get into the green Porsche Cayenne, and drive off in the direction of Federal and Barclay Streets. He was stopped by Detective Gladstone and asked to exit the car, at which time he was taken into custody and read his Miranda rights. Claridy said he understood his rights, but at no time did Detective Gladstone give him a form to sign indicating that he understood his rights. Detective Gladstone asked if he could search the Porsche and Claridy refused. Detective Gladstone then said that he had warrants and proceeded to execute the search warrant on the green Porsche, finding $7,999 in cash under a fold-down armrest.
Later while Claridy was still in custody, Detective Gladstone advised him that he was the subject of a federal drug investigation and that 69 Stemmers Run Road was about to be searched. Although Claridy initially claimed that he knew nothing about that residence and had never been there, he later told the officers that he had a key to the residence and that they would find a handgun in a bedroom closet upstairs.
Upon executing the search warrant at 69 Stemmers Run Road, the HIDTA team found a .357 caliber handgun, a scale, a bag containing heroin, a small amount of marijuana, and paperwork containing both Claridy's and Jones's names.
In a Superseding Indictment issued July 12, 2007, Timothy Claridy and Flora Jones were both charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Claridy was additionally charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Jones was additionally charged with maintaining drug-involved premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2).
Defendant Claridy filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence (Paper No. 12) on June 15, 2007 and a Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence, Derivative Evidence and Statements (Paper No. 24) on November 20, 2007. Defendant Jones filed her Consolidated Motions (Paper No. 36) to suppress and for disclosure of the identity of Confidential Informant #1 on December 5, 2007. This Court denied the initial Motion to Suppress Evidence (Paper No. 12) and the Consolidated Motions (Paper No. 36) on the record at the hearing held December 17, 2007. This Court also denied in part the Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence, Derivative Evidence and Statements (Paper No. 24). The only remaining issue before this Court is the balance of the Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence, Derivative Evidence and Statements (Paper No. 24) with respect to the search of 69 Stemmers Run Road. The precise issue raised by the Defendants is that the search warrant for that residence was obtained in violation of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
ANALYSIS
Rule 41 mandates certain procedures to be followed with respect to search and seizure warrants issued by this Court. At issue in this case, Rule 41(b) provides in relevant part:
At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:
(1) a magistrate judge with authority in the district — or if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the district — has authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district. . . .
Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(b). A threshold issue is whether the search was federal or state in nature, because compliance with Rule 41 is only required for federal searches. See United States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866 (4th Cir. 1992). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that "the test to be applied in determining whether a warrant must be obtained in compliance with [Rule 41(b)] is whether the warrant application was made `at the direction or urging of a federal officer.'" Id. at 870 (quoting United States v. Smith, 914 F.2d 565 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1101 (1991)); see also United States v. MacConnell, 868 F.2d 281, 284 (8th Cir. 1989) ("[T]here must be significant prior involvement for a search to be categorized as federal."); United States v. Bookout, 810 F.2d 965, 967 (10th Cir. 1987) ("A search is `federal in character' when federal officers are directly involved in carrying out the search itself and in taking immediate custody of the fruits of the search.").
In this case, the search was clearly federal in nature. As this Court noted at the hearing of December 17, 2007, the investigation and searches were conducted by members of the joint federal and state HIDTA task force, all of whom were either deputized as federal officers or were federal DEA agents. In addition, pursuant to Detective Gladstone's testimony and police report, the Detective had told Claridy while in custody that he was the subject of a federal drug investigation. Finally, at the time of Claridy's arrest, he was designated as a federal detainee by the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Accordingly, for these reasons and reasons noted by this Court at the hearing, the search was federal in nature, and the requirements of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were triggered.
Introduced as Defendants' Exhibit 2 at the hearing.
Introduced as Defendants' Exhibit 3 at the hearing.
In light of the federal nature of the investigation and search, the procedures of Rule 41 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure applied. The Defendants contend that Rule 41(b) mandated Detective Gladstone to first determine if a Magistrate Judge of this Court was available before presenting the search warrant to a Judge of the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City.
While counsel for the Defendants argued that the rule mandates such a procedure, counsel for the Government argued that the rule on its face does not clearly require law enforcement officers to first contact a federal magistrate judge but rather that it merely specifies who can apply for and who can issue a warrant. In support, the Government cites Md. Code. Ann., Crim. Proc § 2-104(b), which provides that "a federal law enforcement officer may . . . (ii) execute arrest and search and seizure warrants issued under the laws of the State." The Government argues that this provision essentially authorizes federal law enforcement officers to execute warrants issued by state judges.
Initially, counsel for the Defendants have cited no authority to support a ruling by this Court that Detective Gladstone was mandated to first seek a Magistrate Judge of this Court before contacting a state judge. Secondarily, even if Rule 41(b) could be interpreted in the manner suggested by the Defendants, they have failed to show that their constitutional rights were violated or that they were prejudiced in some way.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that "[t]here are two categories of Rule 41 violations: those involving constitutional violations, and all others." United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392, 403 (4th Cir. 2000). Ministerial violations have been held to fit into the latter category. Id. (citing United States v. Smith, 914 F.2d 565, 568 (4th Cir. 1990) and United States v. Wyder, 674 F.2d 224, 225-26 (4th Cir. 1982)). Accordingly, "[n]on-constitutional violations of Rule 41 warrant suppression only when the defendant is prejudiced by the violation, or when `there is evidence of intentional and deliberate disregard of a provision in the Rule.'" Id. (citations omitted). In this case, counsel for the Defendants acknowledged at the hearing that the alleged violation was essentially ministerial in nature. Therefore, the Defendants must show that they were prejudiced or that Detective Gladstone acted with deliberate disregard of Rule 41(b).
The Defendants have not demonstrated any prejudice. The standards applied by Judge Chiapparelli in determining whether probable cause existed to issue the search warrants are the same as those a Magistrate Judge of this Court would apply. Also, as discussed by this Court in the suppression hearing, there was ample evidence to support a finding of probable cause, both from reliable informants and corroboration by the HIDTA task force's surveillance.
The Defendants have acknowledged that there was sufficient probable cause.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Detective Gladstone or any other agents of the HIDTA team acted with deliberate disregard for Rule 41(b). As noted by the Government at the suppression hearing, federal law enforcement officers in Maryland have authority under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 2-104(b) to execute state search warrants. In addition, Detective Gladstone testified that approximately 90% of the cases he has prosecuted with the HIDTA task force were state prosecutions, not federal. Thus, this Court, having observed Detective Gladstone's testimony at the hearing, finds that there was merely an inadvertent failure to first determine the availability of a Magistrate Judge of this Court. In conclusion, Defendants have failed to show that they were prejudiced or that Detective Gladstone or the other HIDTA task force officers acted with deliberate disregard of Rule 41(b).
However, this Court respectfully suggests that when the intent of HIDTA task force officers is to proceed with a matter in this Court, they should in the future first attempt to contact a Magistrate Judge of this Court before proceeding to a state court judge.
Accordingly, Defendants's Motion to Suppress based on alleged violation of Rule 41(b) is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence, Derivative Evidence and Statements (Paper No. 24) is DENIED in its totality.