Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Antoine Jones GPS motion to suppress

Antoine Jones GPS motion to suppress

Ratings: (0)|Views: 77 |Likes:
Published by Emily Babay

More info:

Published by: Emily Babay on Mar 30, 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

03/30/2012

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA ::v. : Case No. 05-CR-386(1) (ESH): Trial: 5/7/12ANTOINE JONES, ::
 Defendant.
:DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS FRUITSOF ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOFDEFENDANT
Antoine Jones (“Jones”), by and through undersigned counsel,and pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applicable caselaw, hereby moves this Honorable Court to suppress at trial of this case all fruits of thegovernment’s unlawful use of a global positioning system (GPS) on Mr. Jones’ vehicle.
FACTS
 Mr. Jones has been charged in a Superseding Indictment with Conspiracy toDistribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Five Kilograms or More of Cocaine and FiftyGrams or More of Cocaine Base. The government alleges that Mr. Jones was part of a narcoticsconspiracy from at least 2003 until October 24, 2005, which spanned from the District of Columbia, Maryland, Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere. In particular, the governmentalleges that Jones was the primary supplier of cocaine to members of the organization in theDistrict of Columbia and Maryland.On September 16, 2005, the government obtained an Order authorizing it toinstall a GPS tracking device on the Jeep Grand Cherokee registered to Mr. Jones’s wife. TheOrder authorized installation of the device in the District of Columbia within 10 days of the
Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 605 Filed 03/29/12 Page 1 of 5
 
 
2Order. On the 11th day, and not in the District of Columbia but in Maryland, FBI agentsinstalled a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of the Jeep while it was parked in a public parking lot. Over the next 28 days, the Government used the device to track the vehicle'smovements, and by means of signals from multiple satellites, the device established the vehicle’slocation within 50 to 100 feet, and communicated that location by cellular phone to aGovernment computer. It relayed more than 2,000 pages of data over the four-week period.Mr. Jones moved to suppress the data obtained from the GPS device. This Courtdenied the motion and allowed the Government to introduce the GPS- derived data, which thegovernment argued connected Jones to the stash house at 9508 Potomac Drive, Ft. Washington,MD, that contained $850,000 in cash, 97 kilograms of 
 
cocaine, and 1 kilogram of cocaine base.Also at that location were three Mexicans, including Roel Bremea, who testified against Mr.Jones at both trials pursuant to a cooperation agreement. A jury convicted Mr. Jones at thesecond trial of his case and the Court sentenced him to life in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversedthe conviction because admission of the evidence obtained by the warrantless use of the GPSdevice violated the Fourth Amendment.
See
 
United States v. Maynard,
615 F.3d 544 (2010). InJanuary of this year, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
See United States v. Jones
, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012).
ARGUMENT
The Fourth Amendment provides that “The right of the people to be secure intheir persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 605 Filed 03/29/12 Page 2 of 5
 
 
3seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The purpose of the exclusionary rule, established in
Weeks v.United States
, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), was to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights.
See United States v. Calandra
, 414 U.S. 338, 347-48 (1974). The exclusionary rule bars the introduction attrial not only of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but also of evidenceobtained as an indirect result of the illegal seizure the fruit of the poisoned tree.
See Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
, 251 U.S. 385 (1920);
Wong Sun v. United States
, 371 U.S. 471(1963).In this case the government illegally obtained evidence from the warrantless useof a GPS device affixed to Mr. Jones’ vehicle. The GPS data directly allowed the government tofind the location of 9508 Potomac Drive,
1
where drugs, money and witnesses were located.Because the seizure of Mr. Jones’ vehicle through the installation of a GPS device was unlawful,any evidence directly or indirectly derived from that illegal seizure must be suppressed as thefruit of the poisonous tree.
See Wong Sun
, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
1
The government has asserted to counsel that it employed other means to locate the stash house and produced whatit contends is information supportive of that assertion. However, counsel has not had the opportunity to have thatinformation analyzed by experts and, therefore, cannot address it in this motion.
Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 605 Filed 03/29/12 Page 3 of 5

You're Reading a Free Preview

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