Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Cornell Motion to Suppress

Cornell Motion to Suppress

Ratings: (0)|Views: 155|Likes:
Published by Jordan Green
Motion to suppress evidence allegedly gathered in violation of 4th and 5th amendments filed by Jorge Cornell on July 27, 2012
Motion to suppress evidence allegedly gathered in violation of 4th and 5th amendments filed by Jorge Cornell on July 27, 2012

More info:

Published by: Jordan Green on Jul 29, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/30/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA1:11-cr-402-1UNITED STATES OF AMERICA))v.))JORGE PETER CORNELL)MOTION TO SUPPRESSEVIDENCE TAKEN IN SEARCHESAND INCORPORATEDMEMORANDUM OF LAW NOW COMES Defendant Jorge Cornell by and through undersigned counsel pursuant tothe Fourth and Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 18 U.S.C. § 3501, movesthis Honorable Court for an order suppressing any and all evidence seized by law enforcement asa result of the following searches:1.Search of a residence at 2809 Keeler Street, Greensboro, North Carolina on or about June 26, 2007.2.Search of a vehicle at a warrantless traffic stop on or about April 24, 2010, saidvehicle being driven by co-defendants Wesley Williams and Richard Robinson and rented byDefendant Jorge Cornell.Evidence was seized on each of these occasions in violation of Defendant Cornell’s rightssecured by the 4 and 5 Amendment to the United States Constitution. Physical evidence at
thth
issue includes a firearm, various controlled substances and various documents were seized as aresult of an unlawful search.In support of this motion Defendant Cornell shows unto the Court the following:1.Defendant Jorge Cornell is charged in a three count indictment with conspiracy toengage in racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, commission of a crime of violence infurtherance of the racketeering enterprise and use of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924.
ase : - r- - o umen iled / / a e of
 
2.On or about June 26, 2007, Greensboro Police officers working with the SafeStreets Task Force, which was instrumental in the current federal prosecution, obtained a searchwarrant from North Carolina Magistrate William for a premises occupied by the DefendantCornell and others located at 2809 Keeler Street, Greensboro, North Carolina. A copy of searchwarrant and affidavit are attached as Exhibit A hereto. The affidavit accompanying the search
1
warrant application by Officer Lowes attempted to set forth facts to establish probable cause. Thefacts alleged, however, failed to establish probable cause and in addition the items authorized to be searched for and seized in the search warrant application greatly exceeded the appropriatescope established by the search warrant affidavit.3.On April 24, 2010 task force officers involved in this case made a traffic stop of avehicle rented by the Defendant Jorge Cornell and operated by Defendants Wesley Williams andRichard Robinson for allegedly failing to stop at a stop sign. Upon information and belief, therewas no basis for the traffic stop During the course of a warrantless search of a vehicle pursuant tothat traffic stop, police seized certain items including a shotgun, rifle and ammunition on thegrounds that the weapons were concealed. This evidence was seized in violation of theDefendant’s rights secured by the 4 and 5 Amendments to the United States Constitution.
thth
ARGUMENTThe Fourth Amendment provides individuals with the right to be secure in their person,houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. United StatesConstitution Amendment Four.To challenge the search successfully under the 4 Amendment, the defendant must have
th
This affidavit is a public record that was provided during discovery in this case. The
1
U.S. Attorney’s office has declined to relax its discovery policy to permit release of discoverydocuments. As a consequence, the document is filed as sealed Exhibit A to this Motion.
ase : - r- - o umen iled / / a e of
 
standing, that is a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the place that was searched.
 Brackets v. Illinois
, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978). Ownership of a vehicle is not determinative of standing tochallenge the constitutionality of the search.
 Rawlings v. Kentucky
, 448 U.S. 98, 104-106(1980);
United States v. Ramapuram
, 632 F. 2d 1149, 1155 (4 Cir. 1980). A warrant must
th
specify the places to be searched and things to be seized with sufficient particularity that theofficer with the warrant can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.
Steele v. United States
, 467 U.S. 498, 503 (1925). See also
Stanford v. Texas
, 379 U.S. 476, 148-85 (1985) (describing the history, purpose and particularity requirement).Here Defendant Cornell has standing because he was a resident of 2809 Keeler Street, theresidence searched on June 27, 2007, and was the renter of the van stopped by police on April 24,2010.The affidavit in support of the search warrant of the 2809 Keeler Street is patentlyinsufficient to establish probable cause Even a cursory review of the warrant attached as ExhibitA hereto reveals that it contains no reliable information to establish probable cause. For example:a.The affiant stated the following: “a confidential source [said] that they havewitnessed persons from 2809 Keeler St partaking in drug activity outside of their  business.” The affidavit provides no information about the reliability of thissource. It does not identify these persons. The affidavit provides no link betweenthe residence and the drug activity; since Keeler street is a residence and theaffidavit indicates that the drug activity occurred outside the confidential source’s business there is no explanation of why there is a connection to residence.
United States v. Lalor 
, 996 F.2d 1578 (4 Cir. 1993).In addition, there is no information
th
about the temporal relationship of the receipt of the information to the date on
ase : - r- - o umen iled / / a e of

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->