You are on page 1of 51

MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY

TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

enforcement, and was only intended for the purpose of obtaining an arrest and
informant statistic to aid in DEFENDANT,.',' ongoing quest to qualify for the receipt
offederal and other funding dollars, and that this entire matter merits referral to
the appropriate federal law enforcement agency for a criminal investigation.

On 04/04/ 13, DEP WEBER described surveillance of the controlled buy


between the two Cls and SADEK:
15. Case Report 13-030 by DEP WEBER dated 04/ 11 /13
At approximately 3:57pm, the Cis enter the parking lot and pull to the
west end of the lot in the back. They meet up with Andrew SAD EK who is
sitting in his vehicle which is a red 2004 Mazada 65 with North Dakota
plates JBZ500. This vehicle is registered to Tammy Lynn SADEK from
Rogers, North Dakota. The Cls pull up next to SADEK and CI #13-0350
gets out of the CI vehicle and goes up to SADEK's driver's side window.
At approximately 3:58pm, CI #13-0350 makes the contact. You can hear
on the transmitter/recorder the CI asking SADEK if the price was $60.
SADEK stated that it was. According to the CI and Agent O'Hara, SADEK
was the only one in the vehicle. SADEK handed the CI a baggie of
marijuana and the CI stated that it looked good, This deal took place
within a school zone. The CI then got back into the CI's vehicle and both
Cl's left the parking lot. (p,2, Item 29)

On 04/04/ 13, DEP WEBER described meeting with the Cls after the
controlled buy, taking the evidence and having CI 13-0350 ID SADEK:
16. Case Report 13-030 by DEP WEBER dated 04/ 11 /1~3
Agent BOELKE and I monitored both Cis back to a predetermined location.

58
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

At approximately 4:03pm, we met up with both Cis. I recovered the


transmitter/recorder from CI -ff.13-0350 and turned it off. The same CI also
handed me a baggie of marijuana.
I searched both Cls and found no money or contraband. Agent BOELKE
searched the Cls' truck and found no money or contraband.
CI #13-0350 identified Andrew SADEK from a North Dakota Driver's
License photo as the individual who delivered the marijuana.
The evidence was brought back to the SEMCA office. The evidence was
photographed and field tested. I used a NIK test kit to field test the
marijuana. The test showed up positive for the presence of THC which if
[sic] found in marijuana. All evidence was turned over to Officer O'Hara
and the evidence was secured in the SEMCA evidence room located in the
Richland County Law Enforcement Center. The evidence will be stored in
the SEMCA evidence room until it can be transported to the State
Laboratory in Bismarck for analysis. (p.2-3, Item 29)

On 04/04/13, DEP WEBER records what he categorizes as a "debriefing"


which is only 34 seconds of audio by CI 13-0350, Tyler~' where
WEBER basically asks ~ yes or no questions about what happened
during the controlled buy:
17. Audio Recording of Transmitter Case 13-030 by DEP WEBER18:
13-0350 H- : -uh met up with him around 4:00pm, um, pulled up
in the back of the parking lot. Um, pulled up right beside him. I got out,
gave him the sixty dollars, and he um, and then he gave me the pot. And
then I just got up and left.
WEBER: And this is who?
13-0350 H- : Andrew SADEK

1a Transcribed by Michael Levine

59
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

WEBER: Okay, arid you know who Andrew SADEK is?


13-0350 H- : Yep.
WEBER: And that's who you had contact with?
13-0350 H- : Yep.
WEBER: And he was alone?
13-0350 H- : Yes.
WEBER: And you handed him the sixty dollar?
13-0350 H-: Yes.
WEBER: And he handed you the marijuana?
13-0350 H-: Yes.
WEBER: And this took place on campus?
13-0350 H-: Yeah
WEBER: Okay.
(audio file, Item 35)

On 04/04/ 13, DEP WEBER took photographs of the messages sent from
Tiil l-ialllll (Cl# 13-0350) to SAD EK:
18. Cellphone Text Message Photogr~phg~-lted 04/04/ 1:3_
11:45AM CI 13-0350: Hey can you meet up somewhere around 4? And
how much you want for that 8th?
11 :54AM SADEK: 60 ill be around
11 :55AM CI 13-0350: K
2:33PM CI 13-0350: Where do you wanna meet
2:35PM SADEK: Ide it up to u
2:36PM CI 13-0350: Alright how about back of the parking lot of
norguard and ro bo
2:42PM SADEK: Yeah sounds good
3:54PM CI 13-0350: Hey me arid my buddy are on our way

60
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

3:55PM SADEK: Ai.ght


(1-3 page, Item 25)

On 04/04/ 13, DEP WEBER took a photograph of the NIK ldt test on the
marijuana purchased from SADEK:
19. NIK KIT test photograph Case 13--030 by DEP WEBER:
photograph. oftest kit indicating purple for marijuana (p. l, Item 24)

On 04/05/ 13, DEP WEBER completed a Drug Inventory and Receipt


Report:
20, Drug Inventory aJ1d Receipt Case 13-030 by DEP WEBER:
04/05/ 13 8: lSAM, Baggie of Marijuana Chain of Custody (p. l, Item 30)

On 04/05/ 13, DEP WEBER completed an Incident Report on Case 13-030,


which does not contain a narrative:
21. In.cident Report for 13-030 date 04/05/13 by DEP WEBER:
SEMCA: Delivery of a Controlled Substance (Marijuana) 3.5 grams,
Value: $60. Subject: Andrew SADEK
Status: Pending
Narrative: [blank]. (p.1-2, Item 31)

On 05/ 14/ 13, the drug lab report on the marijuana purchased from
SADEK is completed:
22. Forensic Discovery Packet for 13-030 date O§/J4/J~
Drug Lab Report, AGO, by Marc Larson, Forensic Scientist
Item 1 Substances found: Cannabis 2.22 grams
(p.1-3, Item 33)

61
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

During WEBER'S Deposition on 10/ 17 / 17, he alleged that it was the two
Cls' idea to target SADEK and not WEBER'S. He even admitted that the
typical practice at SEMCA is to allow Cls to pick targets and locations:
23. DEF JASON WEBER Deposition dated 10/1.7 / 17:
A So, yeah. I would imagine that the two confidential informants, they had
set that up. Typically that's what we do is we have the Cl arrange the
amount, because they are arranging the amounts that they typically buy,
and typically they arrange locations, and so forth.
Q And we already talked about why there were two confidential informants
in this case?
A Correct,
Q That was more their idea than your's'?
A Correct. That's correct.
Q Did either of the confidential informants in that situation indicate to you
that they had previously purchased marijuana from Andrew SADEK?
A I don't recall, I guess, if
in because Tll's contact was Andrew. So I don't know if he was
W-'s contact, but whether
M.
TIii - I don't know. I think they brought TIii

TIii had bought from Andrew in the past, I


don't recall,
(Lines 21-25 p. 59 and Lines 1-14 p. 6, Item 10)

WEBER stated that he does not recall if he asked CI wlllll or ~ if


they had purchased marijuana from SADEK prior to the investigation:
24. DEP JASON WEBER Deposition dated lO/i7 /j.7:
Q So you're not aware of any evidence that would suggest that he [SADEKJ
ever did it outside of these two buys with these individuals?
A Correct.

62
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Q Did those two individuals ever say to you, "Hey, we've bought from
Andrew before."?
A I don't recall.
(Lines 1-7 p. 74, Item 10)

❖ 04/09/ 13: Second Controlled Buy targeting SADEK

During WEBER'S Deposition, he stated that he did not attempt to


increase the buy amount for the second controlled buy conducted on
SADEK and allowed the Cls to control the investigation:
25. DEP JASON WEBER Deposition elated 10/ 17 / 17:
Q Then on April 9, 2013, the same two confidential informants, I believe,
buy one gram from Andrew; is that right?
A I believe it was the same amount of an eighth, I believe. Correct. It was
one gram for $20 on April 9th. Sorry.
Q Did you try to get that amount increased?
A 1 don't recall. I don't believe so. I think they had set that all up,
{Lines 15-23, p. 60, Item 10)

On 04/09/ 13, the same two Confidential Informants purchased a smaller


amount of marijuana from Andrew SADEK:
26. Case Report 13-033 by DEP WEBER elated 04 / 11 / 13
Summary: On Tuesday, April 9, 2013, at approximately 2:57pm,
Confidential Informant #13-0350 and Confidential Informant #13-0345
purchased approximately l gram of marijuana for $20 from Andrew John
SADEK DOB: --93 in Lot #4 on the NDSCS Campus. This is located
in the City of Wahpeton which is in the County of Richland. This deal also
took place in a school zone.

63
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Details: On Tuesday, April 9, 2013, Confidential Informants #13-0350 and


#13-0345 contacted me, Agent Jason WEBER, regarding them being able
to purchase some marijuana from Andrew SADEK. (p. l, Item 40)

On 04/09/ 13, DEP WEBER took photographs of the $20 buy money:
27. Buy money serial numbers 13-033 by DEP WEBER dated
04/04/13
Photograph of $20 with serial numbers
( 1 page, Item 38)

On 04/09/13, DEP WEBER described initially meeting with the two Cis
before the controlled buy. There are no details about which CI set up the
con trolled by against SAD EK, or any of the other vital details, covered
and mandated in National and professional standards (listed below):
28. Case Report 13-033 by DEP WEBER dated 04/18/13
DETAILS: At approximately 2:47pm, I met with both Cl's at a
predetermined location. I searched both Cl's. Cl 13-0350 had no money or
contraband. CI 13-0345 had a wallet, but no contraband. The CI'S wallet
was taken until the deal was done. Agent John Boelke searched Cl # 13-
0345>s vehicle and found no money or contraband. I issued CI # 13-0350
$20 from the buy fund money.
At approximately 2:50pm, I started the transmitter recorder and placed it
on CI #13-0350. Then both Cis left the predetermined located and went to
Lot #4 on NDSCS Campus where the deal was set up. This location is
located in the City of Wahpeton in the County of Richland. Agent JOHN
BOELKE and I monitored the Cis to this location. Agent BLAINE O'HARA
and Agent JOHN SMYKOWSKI monitored the parking lot where the deal
took place. (p. l-2, Item 40)

64
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

On 04/09/13 at 2:50PM, DEP WEBER started the transmitter to record


the controlled buy between the two Cls and SADEK. The transmitter
recorded for 12 minutes. There is no transcript for the audio recording
and WEBER did not summarize the audio recording in his report:
29. Audio Recording of Transmitter Case 13-033 by DEP WEBER:
WEBER: Today's date is Tuesday April 9th, 2013, time is 2:50PM, starting
on the transmitter recorded placing on the CI.
static, silence
WEBER: Can I put it in this one?
CI 13--0350 H-: Yeah it doesn't matter.
static
WEBER: Okay wanna zip it up. Two things again just kinda like you did
last time, the money $20, whatever, it looks good.
CI 13-0350 I- : Looks good.
WEBER: Okay and then we'll come back here.

H-
CI 13-0350 ~ Okay.
breathing
CI 13-0350 Holy god it's cold outside.
CI 13-0345 W-: Yeah.
driving
CI 13-0345 WIIII That's pretty awesome you could like hide a lot of shit
in there where this arm is.
static
CI 13-0350 ~ : Yeah they weren't too bad, like 20 bucks at Costco
or whatever. Yeah especially the arm thing that folds up too.
CI 13-0345 ~ : Yeah like they actually have a spot for it.
driving

65
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

CI 13~0350 HIIIIII: I have to go fucking pay my seatbelt ticket.


CI 13-0345 W-: Seatbelt ticket?
CI 13-0350 H-: Yeah I got a seatbelt ticket over the weekend,
CI 13-0345 WIii: Where at?
CI 13-0350 H-: In Forks. I was driving S-'s car and fucking, got
pulled over for because one of the tags was expired. But they were like, in
the mail. You know?
CI 13-0345 WIii: Oh yeah.
CI 13-0350 H- : So yeah, the cop pulled me over and he's like "well,
we're not going to give you a ticket for the tag" but he gave me a ticket for
the seatbelt. I was like, you motherfucker. laughter. But it was like,
whatever man, It's only 20 dollars, I mean if I were to get that in
Minnesota though, I would have been railed.
CI 13-0345 WIii: Yeah.
CI 13-0350 H- : Been like, $200.
driving, silence
CI 13-0350 HIIIIII: So after this you're done~-
CI 13-0345 WIii: Yep.
CI 13-0350 HIIIIII: Walk away and nothing else. Free as a bird.
CI 13-0345 WIii: The way I've been feeling,
CI 13-0350 f-: Yeah.
driving, silence
CI 13-0350 H- : I should probably text him and say "hey are you
there?" Or something.
CI 13-0345 WIii: Yeah.
CI 13-0350 H- : I should be like «on my way'' or "almost there"
driving, silence
CI 13-0350 HIIIIII: That's a nice pickup.

66
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

CI 13-0345 WIIIIII: Yeah it is. That's my classmate's pick up I think.


CI 13-0350 H-: Huh?
CI 13-0345 W-: That's a kid from my classes pick up.
CI 13-0350 ~: Ifs nice.
CI 13-0345 W-: D- ... I'm not sure of his last name. It's a pretty nice
pick up. I've got to be the worst person in the world with names. I can't
remember shit.
driving, silence
CI 13-0350 H-: Where is his car?
ringing
CI 13-0350 I--: He just texted me, he said "alright." A Mazda Six,
where is it?
driving, silence
CI 13-0350 II-: I'll look around.
CI 13-0345 WIIIIII: Where should we go?
CI 13-0350 H-: Uh, drive up one more ... Oh okay, there it is, there's
his car. Okay go to the back corner.
CI 13-0345 W-: Like over here?
CI 13-0350 H- : Yeah. What will I say, "T'm parked in the back
corner."
driving, silence
CI 13-0350 H-: Now we wait.
silence, engine running
6:50: CI 13-0350 H-: Okay, I'm just get out. "Here's your 20, looks
good."
CI 13-0345 Wllll "Looks good."
CI 13-0350 H-: Okay.
CI 13-0345 W.- He's pulling up here.

67
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

CI 13-0350 ~ [indiscernible]
CI 13-0345 WIii: Yeah he got in his car and drove.
CI 13-0350 HIIIIIIII: Oh wait here he comes. Yeah there he is. Alright,
I'm going to get out. "Here's your 20, looks good."
car door closes, walking
CI 13-0350 H- : Here's your 20 ... Looks good. See you later.
SADEK: Later,
ioalkinq, silence
CI 13-0350 HIIIIIIII: I think he was scared.
CI 13-0345 WIii: About what?
CI 13-0350 H-: There was another car parked over there, looking.
With a dude in it.
CI 13-0345 WIii: Oh yeah?
car engine running
CI 13-0350 HIIIIIIII: I don't think it was anything but I think he was a
little scared. Now see he's leaving now.
CI 13-0345 WIii: Yeah.
driunq, silence
CI 13-0350 HIIIIIIII: Slow down blackie chan.
CI 13-0345 W-: Please no. Now is not -
CI 13-0350 ~: You don't think they're going to move on him
now, eh? I wonder where he's getting his pot.
CI 13-0345 Jtlll: Yeah, I don't know.
CI 13-0350 ~: Fucking, big old pot ring.
car engine runninq, silence
CI 13-0345 W .. That's kinda a nice car here. I like that Camero.
CI 13-0350 H-: Yep.
driving, silence

68
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

CI 13-0350 H- : I got an idea. Let's get this over with.


CI 13-0345 W-: Yeah.
driving, silence
Cl 13-0350 ~: I wonder who first thought of smoking pot. You
know, like what person way back when was just like, "that plant looks
pretty good, I think I'm going to smoke it."
CI 13-0345 W-: laughter
CI 13-0350 ~: Well like for real, like, how many plants did they
try?
CI 13-0345 W-: laughter Stink weed]
CI 13-0350 H-: laughter Like what?
CI 13--0345 W-: laughter trying all of these plants, until they get it right.
CI 13-0350 ~: It's just some crazy dude out there, "I'm just going
to try and smoke anything."
CI 13-0345 W-: laughter one of them's got to be good.
CI 13-0350 ~: I just don't know man, I don't know.
driving, silence
Cl 13-0350 H- : That's a nice pickup there too, that Dodge.
CI 13-0345 WIIIIII: Yeah.
CI 13-0350 H-: Jeez.
driving, engine turninq off
CI 13-0350 ~: Do you have this? [not totally clear]
CI 13-0345 WIIIIII: Yeah pretty close, getting there.
CI 13-0350 ~: Gotta get out in the cold again.
CI 13-0345 W-: Yep.
car door closing, walking
WEBER: 302 Turning off the transmitter recorder.
(audio file 13-033, Item 46)

69
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

On 04/09/ 13 surveillance video recorded 34 seconds of the controlled


buy:
30.

(screenshot from video, Item 45)

On 04/09/ 13, DEP WEBER described surveillance of the controlled buy


between the two Cls and SADEK:
31. Case Report 13-033 by DEF WEBER dated 04/18/13
At approximately 2:54pm, the Cls enter the parking lot and pull to the
west end of the lot in the back. They meet up with Andrew SAD EK who is
sitting in his vehicle which is a red 2004 Mazada 65 with North Dakota
plates JBZ500. This vehicle is registered to Tammy Lynn SADEK from
Rogers, North Dakota. The Cis pull up next to SAOEK and CI #13-0350
gets out of the CI vehicle and goes up to SADEK's driver's side window.
At approximately 2:57pm, CI #13-0350 makes the contact. You can hear
on the transmitter/recorder the CI giving SADEK the $20 by saying,
"Here's your $20". Then the CI say, "looks good". According to the CI and
Agent O'HARA and Agent JOHN SMYKOWSKI, SADEK was the only one in

70
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

the vehicle. This deal took place within a school zone. The CI then got back
into the Cl's vehicle and both CI's left the parking lot. (p.1-2, Item 40)

On 04/09/ 13, DEP WEBER described meeting with the Cis after the
controlled buy, taking the evidence and having CI 13-0350 ID SADEK:
32. Case Report 13-033 by DEP WEBER dated 04/ 18/13
Agent Boelke and I monitored both Cis back to a predetermined location.
At approximately 3:01pm, we met up with both Cis. I recovered the
transmitter/recorder from CI #13-0350 and turned it off. The same CI
also handed me a baggie of marijuana. I searched both Cis and found no
money or contraband. Cl# 13-0345 was given the wallet back. Agent
Boelke searched the Cis' truck and found no money or contraband.
CI #13-0350 identified Andrew SADEK from a North Dakota Driver's
License photo as the individual who delivered the marijuana. The evidence
was taken back to the SEMCA office and photographed and field tested.
The NIK test kit showed up positive for the presence of THC which is
found in marijuana.
All evidence was turned over to Officer O'Hara and the evidence was
secured in the SEMCA evidence room located in the Richland County Law
Enforcement Center. The evidence will be stored in the SEMCA evidence
room until it can be transported to the State Laboratory in Bismarck for
analysis. (p.2··3, Item 40)

On 04/09/ 13, DEP WEBER records what he categorizes as a "debriefing"


which is only 30 seconds of audio by Cl 13-0350, TIii HIIIIIIIII, where
WEBER basically asks HIIIIIIIII yes or no questions about what happened
during the controlled buy:

71
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

33. Audio Recording of Transmitter Case 13-030 by DEF WEBER19:


13-0350 H-: -uh I arrived, went to the back of the parking lot. I
saw he was there, I walked up to the car -
WEBER: Who is he?
13-0350 H-: Andrew SADEK
WEBER: Okay.
13-0350 H-: I walked up to the car, gave him the money, he
handed me the pot and we left.
WEBER: Okay, you walked up to his driver's side window?
13-0350 H-: Yes.
WEBER: And he just stayed in the car the whole time?
13-0350 H-: Yes.
WEBER: Okay, and you handed him the money?
13-0350 H-: Yes.
WEBER: And Andrew handed you the marijuana?
13-0350 H- : Yes.
WEBER: Okay.
(audio file, Item 4 7)

On 04/09/13, DEP WEBER takes a photograph of the NIK kit test on the
marijuana purchased from SADEK:
34, NIK KIT test photograph Case 13-033 by DEP WEBER:
photograph of test kit indicating purple for marijuana (p.1, Item 36)

On 04/09/ 13, DEP WEBER completed a Drug Inventory and Receipt


Report:
35. Drug Inventory and Receipt Case 13-033 by DEP WEBER:

19 Transcribed by Michael Levine

72
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

04/09/13 3:40PM, Baggie of Marijuana Chain of Custody (p.l, Item 41)

On 04/11/13, DEP WEBER completed an Incident Report on Case 13-033,


which does not contain a narrative
36. Incident Report for 13-033 date 04/ 11 / 13 by DEP WEBER:
SEMCA: Delivery of a Controlled Substance (Marijuana)
Value: $20. Subject: Andrew SADEK
Status: Pending
Narrative: [blank]. (p.1-2, Item 42)

On 05/ 14/ 13, the drug lab report on the marijuana purchased from
SADEK is completed:
37. Forensic Discovery Packet for 13-033 date 05/14:/1~
April 2013 to November 2013: Undocumented timeline gap. As of
the present date we have not received any proof of the activities that did

H-
of M. W-'S case is unknown, the status of M. W-
or did not occur between April 2013 to November 2013. The disposition
and
as informants is unknown. Whether or not there was any
TIIIIII

continued surveillance or controlled buys conducted against Andrew


SADEK is unknown. SADEK then leaves the college and goes home for
summer break. He returns in the Fall but the investigation conducted by
DEP. WEBER does not resume until November 21, 2013 (more than 2
months into the Fall semester).

Comment/analysis, Item 9 -37:


These items, 9-37, capture the entire investigation conducted into the alleged
marijuana trafficking activities, of Andrew SADEK, as reported by defendant
WEBER. To best illustrate all DEFENDANTS radical deviation from National and

73
MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

professional standards in the conduct of so called "Investigation" as they relate to


undercover tactics and informant handling, in particular the controlled buy, I am
pasting in those standards, as they appear in the "Informant law Desk book,"
authored by, Dennis Fitzgerald, retired DEA Agent/ practicing attorney/police
instructor, himself a court qualified expert of many decades. Mr. Fitzgerald, also
a colleague of mine, accompanied me to Brazil, where we taught the subject of
"Undercover Tactics and Informant Handling," on assignment from the United
States State Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration, to the
Brazilian federal police. As should be noted, the footnotes depicting Mr.
Fitzgerald\s research are included. I reserve the right to go throuqh. these
National and professional standards, in detail, the many deviations found in
DEFENDANTS' procedures, and how said deviations provide yet an additional
probable cause in support of all my opinions and fin.dings in this matter.

Undercover Purchases
of Evidence by Informants
and Probable Cause
§ 7.1 Generally
§ 7.2 The Controlled Buy
§ 7.3 initial informant Debriefing
§ 7.4 Search of Informant and Vehicle
§ 7.5 Funds Providedfor Purchase of Evidence
§ 7.6 Observation of the CL Entering and Exiting the
Location
§ 7.7 Searching the Informant Again
§ 7.8 Follow-up Informant Debriefing
§ 7,9 Informant's Statement
§ 7.10 informant Purchases
§ 7.11 Informant Introduction of Undercover Agent
Appendix 7A The DEA Raid Execution Process
Appendix 7B Operational Plan Format
Appendix 7C Evidence Fund Accounting Receipt
@West Group #1, .'5/98 (LWI)
§ 7.1

74
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Generally

A search warrant is issued upon a showing of probable


cause1 to believe that the legitimate object of a search is located in
a particular place. 1.i The controlled buy2 allows the detective to
send his informant into the premises, purchase an
[ ... ]
cause in search warrant investigations and undercover
purchases of evidence.
Issuing magistrates, prosecutors, police managers, and defense
counsel are often ignorant concerning how informants must be
managed in controlled purchase investigations. Yet developing
informants for use in obtaining a search warrant is one of the
first lessons taught to new detectives and agents.
Historically, "search warrant cases" have been at the
heart of a large percentage of the drug prosecutions. They
have been the staple of police departments conducting
investigations with limited manpower or financial resources, In-
formants have depended upon purchasing evidence for financial
support or reduction of charges. See Appendix 7C, Evidence
Fund Accounting Receipt, Agent Productivity In- formation,
from Portland (Oregon) Police Bureau Informant Forms.
Between 1980 and 1993, the number of federal search warrants
relying exclusively on an unidentified informant nearly tripled,
from 24 percent to 71 percent.15
Search warrants have also yielded devastating results in
violent deaths and injuries to agents and occupants of targeted
residences. Raiding the wrong address has tarnished the image
of federal, state and local agencies alike. James Otis believed
that search warrants placed "the liberty of every man in the
hands of a petty officer." t6 The 1990s have to some extent
validated his view.

§ 7.2
The Controlled Buy
Agents routinely receive information from inforrnants regarding
the location of contraband and criminal activity.17The illegally
possessed items are usually narcotics, stolen property, untaxed
liquor, counterfeit money, or illegal weapons. The investigation
will generally develop information in tended to establish
probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant, 18

75
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

to come before a
After the kind of investigation that is supposed
search, embarrassed federal officials paid $2.75 million to
homeowner Donald Carlson, 44. He came out of the 1992 raid with
one quarter of his lung capacity destroyed by federal bullets. Despite
wamings from another cup, the agents had swallowed an entirely
fictitious talc concocted by an informant."

The controlled buy" is an investigative technique used to


corroborate the informant's original information that
contraband is located at a particular location. zi The C.l. is
usually a trusted acquaintance or customer of the individual
in possession of the contraband. Crimes involving the illegal
items are usually economically driven making the items
available for sale to the informant while under the
supervision of a control agent.
The controlled purchase 1s orchestrated by the
informant's handler usually in a prescribed manner. It will
ensure that the informant is being truthful in his account of
where the illegal items he obtained <luring the controlled
buy are located.
Controlled buys arc also a method of reviving "stale" in-
formation. The Supreme Court requires that for probable
cause information to support the issuance of a search war-
rant, "the proof must be of facts so closely related to the time
of the issue of the wan-ant as to justify a finding of probable
cause· at that time. "22
The controlled buy is also referred to as an undercover
buy,23 a controlled informant buy,24 and simply as an
informant buy.25 The technique has been utilized in both
untaxed liquor cases and drug investigations since the
1930s. It involves a series of steps which ensure that the
events related in the affidavit are truthful and minimize
the opportunity for an informant's misconduct. They also
reduce acts of omission by the control agent during the
operation.

7.3
§
Initial Informant Debriefing

76
MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

A complete debriefing of the informant concerning all


information known by him about the targeted premises and
occupants must be conducted. Initial accounts related to
the police by the CJ. are often confused and sketchy. The
confusion usually concerns the exact location where the
contra- band items are located and the true identity of the
violator in possession of the illegal item.
The fourth amendment requires that 11
110 Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched. 1126 The uniformly applied rule is that a search
conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the
particularity requirement of the fourth amendment 1s
unconstitutional. 27
A Colorado woman was hospitalized after eight DEA agents
forced open her door, cursed her, and beat her to the ground-
before realizing they were at the wrong house. The man they
were really after was later charged with amphetamine
manufacture. The Jefferson County DA has not commented on
whether charges will be brought against the agents. In a letter to
the DA, the Wheat Ridge Mayor wrote that "drug
manufacturers must be controlled but not by people who
cannot even get the address for the raid correct. 1128
"It is enough if the description is such that the officer
with a search warrant can with reasonable effort
ascertain and identify the place intended.' '29 Yet the
Colorado incident illustrates the obvious-verifying the
exact location is critical. The debriefing begins the process
of fully identifying the location where contraband ts
believed to be possessed. The interview also begins the
task of evaluating the veracity= of the informant.
Following a preliminary review by the investigator, the
potential value of the information must be assessed. If
the criminal conduct described by the informant meets the
agency's criteria for initiating an investigation, the case will
move forward,
Often the obvious is overlooked. At some point the
informant must be physically taken into the field to point
out the physical location to the agent where the offense is
being com- mitred. The process need not expose the C.l. as
cooperating with the police. He can be driven to the location
in a surveillance vehicle with darkened windows. The

77
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

investigator will then be able to obtain both a physical


address" and a physical description? of the premises for
the search warrant.
This is not a time for the investigator to take short-cuts.
While on site with the informant, he should ask questions
regarding which door the C.I. enters when visiting the
premises. TI1e agent should already anticipate that a
controlled buy will be attempted and that a search warrant
will be executed at the location. In the case of residences
such as duplexes with multiple entries, knowing the exact
point of entry the C.l. will use assists the surveilling agents
during the con- trolled purchase in monitoring the
informant's movements. Thal information will also
prevent the raid team executing a search warrant from
entering the wrong side of the duplex.
Once the exact address is known the agent can begin the
process of fully identifying the violator. Utility companies
can be contacted to determine the name of the individual
receiving services. A subpoena may be required to obtain
a copy of the original credit application. The named
applicant is not necessarily the suspect hut the information
may supply leads that will assist in the investigation.
A thorough debriefing " also serves to fully identify the
violator. The informant may not know the individual's full
name but only refer to him by a "nickname" or an alias.
The "nickname" may be recognized by the interviewer"
allowing for full identification of the subject. Other officers
may recognize both the nickname and the address as
having a reputation for criminal activity. Their knowledge
can serve to corroborate the informant's account in
assessing whether probable cause exists. 35 Many agencies
maintain "nickname files" which can either be manually
searched or may be queried in computer indexes. See
Chapter 8, Corroboration of Informant Information.
The informant may also have a residential telephone
number or telephone pager number for the subject.
Subscriber informatiorr'" can be obtained through "criss-
cross" directories. Non-published telephone numbers can
be obtained from the service provider with a subpoena.

78·
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Companies providing pager service can also provide


subscriber information. Two problems often arise
following inquiries. The provider may compromise the
secrecy of the investigation and reveal the request to the
customer. The second problem is similar to that
encountered with cellular telephones. The units are often
freely passed around to members of an organization with
no exclusive use by one person.
Once a verifiable name and date of birth of the subject is
obtained, photographs37 also often become available. Law
enforcement agencies can request copies of the color
photograph taken for a drivers license. Targets of
investigation without licenses may have arrest
photographs or mug shots on file with a local police
agency. Many violators have state identification cards
issued which also require a photograph to be maintained.
Once a photograph is secured, the informant can be given
the opportunity to identify the subject from a group of
photos lo verify the subject's identity."
The informant should also be questioned about vehicles
that the subject has been seen driving or that are routinely
located at the target location. Agents can perform "drive
by" surveillance and obtain license numbers of vehicles
frequenting the residence or business. Regular customers of
the target and possibly a source of supply may be identified
in this manner. If present at the time a search warrant is
executed, their "presence p1us"39 the intelligence obtained
by prior surveillance may be enough to justify a search of
their persons and vehicle.40 The information can also serve
to isolate details wh:ich further corroborate the source's
accounts of criminal activity." The Supreme Court has
recognized the value of corroborating the iuformant's tip
by independent investigation.42
To maximize the effectiveness of a search warrant the in-
formant must be effectively questioned regarding what he
has observed while inside the premises. The fourth
amendment requires that 11110 Warrant shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the . . . persons or things to be
seized."

79
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Obviously, in a drug search warrant the objects to be


searched for are drugs.44 Drugs are easily concealed
and allow the search team wide latitude in the extent
of the search. An agent lawfully searching for drugs may
inadvertently discover evidence of another crime (e.g.,
pistol with silencer). Although weapons were not listed as
an item to be searched for in the warrant, seizure of the gun
is constitutionally allowed under the plain view doctrine.45
Agents often gel "runnel vision" in their debriefing
approach. A detective assigned to develop probable cause
for the search of a warehouse for stolen Harley Davidson
motorcycles may debrief his informant only about the
location of the stolen vehicles. If one of the organized
motorcycle gang were concealing the vehicles, the
informant should also be questioned about other
contraband items used or possessed within the premises
to be searched.46 A warrant directing agents to search only
for motorcycles would not allow for agents opening desk
drawers and discovering a vial containing narcotics. If the
informant reports having observed narcotics47 on the
premises in addition to the stolen motorcycles, "drugs or
narcotics'F" must be listed as an item to be seized if the
seizure and warrant arc to stand a challenge by the
defense.49
A full debriefing can often elicit information that will
en- sure that items that might ordinarily be overlooked will
be included as items to be seized. Many individuals
involved in any of the full range of criminal enterprises
utilize personal computers to track their business activity.
Electronic telephone books often contain code numbers for
customers in crimes that utilize pagers for
communication. Such items need to be identified as
objects of the search.
The full inquiry of what was observed inside the
premises by the informant also satisfies valid officer
safety issues. Many residences used for drug dealing are
heavily fortified. Steel doors, bars across ordinary doors
and windows, and booby traps are not uncommon. The
entry team needs to be aware of any impediments to a fast
and effective entry. [See Appendix 7 A, The DEA Raid
Execution Process.)

80
MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

A thorough debriefing of an informant does not occur


accidently. Many agencies have pre-designed forms that
cover a fu11 range of questions for the interviewing
detective to ask the informant. Such formats combined
with the detectives experience can illicit far more detailed
information regarding the targeted location than a rambling
interview. See Appendix 8E Source Debriefing Guide.
The informant's relationship with the occupant of the
targeted location and how long they have been associated
must be determined. The longer the relationship and type
of relationship will have a bearing upon the credibility of
the C.I.'s information. A live-in paramour will obviously
know more about a criminal operation than an occasional
visitor.
The investigator must also attempt to determine the exact
motivatiorrf for the informant's coming forward with
information." (Sec Chapter 2, Motivations to Cooperate as
an Informant.) Revenge as a motive should be explored
when a girlfriend or boyfriend suddenly comes to the
police to disclose the location of a cache of illegal drugs in
their home. 52
The C.I. could be using the police as a lever in a lovers
quarrel or a custody dispute attempting to have the ex-
spouse arrested. The informant could "plant" drugs
in such a scenario.
The informant must be questioned regarding firearms he
has either seen at the location or heard about existing on the
premises. Weapons are used to protect the location from
both police and home invasions by other criminals.
§ 7.4
Search of Informant and Vehicle

The only method to ensure that the informant does not


supply the contraband item himself is to thoroughly search
him prior to the controlled buy. The extent of the search is
dictated by the item the informant is instructed to purchase.
If the informant is purchasing a concealable amount of
drugs or other small item, he must be strip searched.53 ALI
body cavities should be checked as should any clothing to
be worn during the buy.

81
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Many agents do not like the practice of strip searching


informants. Some agents resist the process because it is
time consummg while others find the procedure
embarrassing.
Informants generally do not like to be searched for a
variety of reasons. Informants with a "police buff" mentality
find the procedure degrading. Some informants do not like
the search process because it makes it either difficult or
impossible to orchestrate a contrived purchase,
Probable cause requires the affiant to provide enough
information so that there exists "a fair probability't" of the
existence of criminal activity at the location to be searched.
The strip search serves to further that probability and allow
the magistrate "to make a practical, common-sense decision
whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the
affidavit. .. there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be· found in a particular place.55
If the informant is purchasing stolen automobile parts
from a "chop shop," he does not necessarily need to be strip
searched. Some agencies require it regardless of the type of
evidence being purchased. The informant should at a mini-
mum be thoroughly searched and surrender the content of
pockets or purse to the control agent until after the con-
trolled buy is completed. The informant should never be
allowed to carry a firearm during a controlled buy or any
police supervised activity.
The informant's vehicle,56 if used to drive to the buy
location, must also be thoroughly searched. This rule applies
regardless of what type of crime is being investigated.

§ 7.5
Funds Provided for Purchase of Evidence

The case agent provides the informant with the funds for
the purchase of evidence. The informant must sign for the
money.57 The tenn "marked money" is often mistakenly
used to describe the funds. The money is not marked for
later retrieval purposes, instead the serial numbers are
recorded on a piece of paper or memorialized in a report,
Some agencies simply Xerox the notes. "Buy money" or

82
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

official advanced funds (O.A.F.)58 is serialized for two


purposes. During a search warrant all funds discovered in the
premises or on the person of the target are seized. The serial
numbers on the seized funds can be compared with the
prerecorded funds used during the previous controlled buy.
The recovery of official advanced funds during the search is
extremely damaging evidence,
Money is also serialized to assist in its recovery in the
event of theft either by the informant or the target of the
investigation. Robbery is a common occurrence during a buy
operation.

§ 7.6
Observation of the C.I. Entering and Exiting the
Location59
Once the informant and his vehicle have been searched
the informant should not be permitted to leave the view of
at least one agent. This eliminates the possibility that the in-
formant obtained evidence from any place other than the
targeted location.
During the debriefing process;: the location of the "buy"
was predetermined. The informant should be directed to
make no stops while enroute to the location. Pre-buy
surveillance should be established by members of the
control agent's team. The agent following the CJ. to the buy
location maintains radio communication with the
surveillance team to alert them of the C.I.'s impending
arrival. The surveillance team must observe the informant
enter the targeted location.
The surveillance team should have personally observed
the informant prior to the buy or have been provided with a
photograph of the informant. Often, given little more than a
clothing and physical description of the C.I.
Surveilling agents must maintain surveillance of the
targeted premises until the informant exits. The
informant should be followed from the buy location to a
predetermined meeting place. The surveillance team must
establish that the informant meets with no one other than
the control agent or a member of the surveillance team,

83
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

One agent should maintain surveillance of the premises


after the informant's departure. Accomplices and sources of
supply are often identified through post buy surveillance.
§ 7.7
Searching the Informant Again
The informant should return to a secure location. Here
the informant will give the control agent the purchased
evidence. Evidence or original containers containing
evidence should be submitted to the agencies' laboratory for
latent fingerprint examination. Once again the informant is
thoroughly searched. The process ensures that he did not
retain any evidence or keep any buy money" l Similarly, his
vehicle, if used, should also be thoroughly searched. It is not
unusual for informants to attempt to keep some of the buy
money or evidence for themselves.

§ 7.8
Follow-Up Informant Debriefing
Once again the informant must be debriefed. The subjects
covered in the initial debriefing must be reviewed again. The
amount and location of contraband observed during the
controlled buy must be determined. The information will
assist in assessing the immediacy of obtaining a search
warrant. Undue delay may cause the information to become
stale. 60
Informants are rarely called upon to testify in controlled buy
61
search wanant cases. Affidavits containing hearsay from
confidential informants are permitted by the Supreme (Text
continued on page 7-17). Court" and magistrates routinely allow
the prosecution to withhold the informants identity."

§ 7.9
Informant's Statements
Many departments and agencies require that the
informant provide a written statement. The practice
memorializes in the informant's own words the events that
occurred during the undercover purchase. The statement
also makes it more difficult for the recalcitrant informant

84
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

to deny his role in the investigation." Agents routinely


prepare a statement for the informant unable to write the
account of what occurred. The statement should mirror
the C.I. 's description of the events that occurred during
the controlled buy, Any mistakes or pen changes must be
initialed by the informant on the original copy. The
original statement must be signed by the C.I. and witnessed
by two agents. The DEA uses the following format:65
Heading: The heading should contain the informants code
number or code name, the date, time and location of the
statement, the names of the agents taking the statement and a
brief description of the events covered.ss
Rady: The body of the statement should be in the informant's
own words. If prepared by the agents for the informant it
should be reported in the body of the statement.67
Conclusion: The conclusion should state that the informant
has read the foregoing statement consisting of pages, that he
has initialed each page and all corrections, that it is true and
correct to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that. he
gave the statement freely and voluntarily, without threats,
coercion or promises.68
Signatures: The agents sign all copies, the informant will sign
only the original which remains in the informant file,69
Agencies at the federal level each have their own
policies on informant statements. The DEA requires a
statement where the informant has provided information or
has participated in an activity that may require his
testimony. That policy may be waived if taking a statement
will adversely affect the outcome of the investigation. All
relevant information must be reported in the investigative
report. Both the super- visor and prosecutor must concur
in the decision to not take a statement. 70
ATP requires an informant statement only if the
informant is present during the commission of a crime or
accompanies a special agent working in an undercover
capacity during the commission of a violation. If the agent
is unable to obtain a signed statement from the informant,
he is required to submit a memorandum of testimony for
the informant with his case report, 71
The U.S. Customs Service only requires source debriefings
in instances where payments to the informant exceed $3,000
or an aggregate total of $3,000 or more per investigation. The
debriefing is documented in a memorandum to the source's

85
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

file. His trne identity does not appear in the debriefing, only
the source's number. 72
State and local agencies have promulgated their own
policies regarding informant statements. The practice
appears more prevalent among departments that have
grown dependent upon informants and experienced
difficulties in their use. 73
§ 7,10
Informant Purchases
Controlled buys are often made anticipating the
possibility that the informant will be called upon to testify as
a material witness. The procedures remain the same as the
"search warrant controlled buy" but with additional steps
to assist in corroboration and to collect damaging
evidence.
Prior to the controlled buy, the informant should be
directed by his control agent to place a telephone call to
the target. The call is consensually tape recorded" by the
agent who is present while the call is made. The consent of
the in- formant must be voluntarily obtained. The tape
recording must be retained as evidence, initialed by both the
agent and informant. [See Chapter 9, Informants and
Electronic Surveillance.]
The informant may also be asked to wear either a
concealed tape recorder or transmitter" during the
controlled buy. The recording of the conversation in the
absence of the agent is permissible since the informant is
acting "under color of law. "76 The tape recording produced
during the pm-chase is maintained as evidence.
Upon return to the prearranged secure location following
the purchase some investigators have the C.I. telephone the
target. This call is also tape recorded and used to elicit
conversation about the transaction that had just transpired.
The post-buy telephone call is generally used if the C.I. had
not consensually tape recorded the earlier transaction. It
also is used to arrange subsequent purchases." The tape
recording of the conversation is also retained as evidence.

Footnotes

86
TRIAL" MICHAEL LEVINE" SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

l See Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 436 (1948), the
Fourth Amendment" protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a
neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often
competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. 11
1.1 Steagald v. United States. 451 U.S. 204, 212"13 (1981).
2 Burkoff, Search Warrant Law Deskbook §.5.2 (Clark Boardman Callaghan).
[ .. ,]
15 Mark Curriden, "Secret Threat to Justice," Nat. L.J. (Feb. 20, 1995), examination of 1,212
warrants in four selected cities.
16Buydv. United States, 116 U.S. 616,625 (1886).
l7 Ortega v. United States, 897 F. Supp. 771, 780 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
18 U.S. Const. amend. N.
19 Katel, "The Trouble With Informants," Newsweek, Jan. 30, 1995, at 1, 48.
20 Burkoff, Search Warrant Law Deskbook § 5.2 (Clark Boardman Callaghan).
21 Commonwealth v. Miley, 460 A.2d 778 (Pa. Super. 1983).
22 Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206,210 (1932).
23 DEA Office of Training, Informant Interaction, VIllA, Use of a C.I. to
Make an Undercover Buy, ·
24 Narcotics Investigators Manual, 'IACP, DEA 1974.
25 "Street Level Narcotics Enforcement," Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Apr.1990, at 11.
26 U.S. Const. amend. N.
27 Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 988 n.5 (1984).
28 Denver Post, July 16, 1993.
29 Steel v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503 (1925).
30 United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971); People v. Cooks, J 41 Cal.
App.3d224, 190 Cal. Rptr. 211,261, cert. denied, 464 U.S.1046 (1983);
State v. Burton, 416 So. 2d. 73,74-75 (La. 1982) (disapproved by Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213 reh'gdenied463 U.S. 1237 (1983).
It is not necessary to verify every detail-just enough to believe the
informant, United States v. Bush, 647 F.2d 357, 363 (3d Cir. 1981 ); People v.
Cooks, 141 Cal. App. 3d 224, 190 Cal. Rptr. 211,261, cert. denied, 464 U.S.
1046 (1983); Show- maker v. State, 52 Md. App. 463, 451 A.2c;l 127, 134-
35 (1982); Commonwealth v. Salvaggio, 307 Pa. Super. 385, 453 A.2d 637,
641 (1982); People v. Kilmer, 87 App. Div. 2d 949, 451 N.Y.S.2d 244, 245
(1982).

87
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

31 United States v. Dancy, 947 F.2d 1232 (5th Cir. 1991).


32 United States v. Barnes, 909 F.2d 1059, 1068 n.11 (7th Cir. 1990),
33 DEA Office of Training, Informant Interaction, VlllA, Use of a C.T. to
Make an Undercover Buy.
34 United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971). The officer's own
knowledge can serve to corroborate the informant's account.
35 See, e.g., United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 110 (1965); Illinois v.
Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 n.5 (1983); People v. 1-Jemy, 631 P.2d 1122, 1128
(Colo.1981); State v. Miller, 449 A.2d 1065, 1069 (Del. Super. 1982);
Williams v. State, 157 Ga. App. 476, 277 S.E.2d 923, cert. denied, 454 U.S.
823, 70 L. Ed. 2d 95, 102 S. Ct. 108, 109 (1981) (when informant is police
officer, reliability is assumed m:; a matter of law); State v. Pon tier, l 03 Idaho
91, 645 P.2d 325, 330 (1982); State v. Schubert, 346 N.W.2d 30, 32{Iowa
1984); People v. Fuller, 106 Mich. App. 263, 307 N.W.2d 467, 468 (1981)
("When one police officer receives information from a fellow officer, the law
allows him to assume that his source is credible ... where this information is
then presented to a magistrate in an application for a search warrant, the
magistrate too may consider the source to be credible."); State v. Conaway.
319 N.W.2d 35, 40 (Minn. 1982); State v. Caldwell, 53 N.C. App. I, 279
S.E.2d 852, 856, cert. denied and app. dismissed, 304 N.C. 197, 285
S.E.2d 102 (1981); Brown v. State, 630 S.W.2d 322, 324 (Tex. App. 1982);
State v. Maxwell, 328 S.E.2d 506, 510 & n.10 (W. Va. 1985); Whiteley v.
Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 40!U.S. 560 (1971); People v. Lopez,
181 Cal. App. 3d 842, 226 Cal. Rptr, 714, 716 (1986) (officer could rely on
and use information from other officers in warrant application as to
reliability of informant); See also United States v, Tirinkian, 502 F. Supp.
620, 627 (D.N.D. 1980).
36 United States v. Ordonez, 737 F.2d 793, 807 (9th Cir. 1984) (detective
obtains telephone subscriber information).
3 7 Id. ( detective obtaining photograph through surveillance of suspect).
38 See People v. Simmons, 569 N.E.2d 591 (Il 1. App, 2d Dist 1991); State v.
Taylor, 889 S.W.2d 124 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994); Mayfield v, State, 800 S.W.2d
932 (Tex. App.1990).
39 State v. Carrasco, 147 Ariz. 558, 711 P.2d 1231, 1233-34 (App. 1985)
(must be "presence plus"); see also State v. Broadnax, 98 Wash, 2d 289, 654
P.2d 96, 103-04 (1982) (mere presence is not enough to justify search, there
must be more).
40 United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 809 (1982), see also Carroll v.
United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156 (1925).

88
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

41 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 241 (1983), recognizing the value of
corroboration of details by police investigation.
42 Id. See Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960); Draper v. United
States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959).
43 U.S. Const. amend. IV.
44 United States v. Klein, 565 F.2d 183 (1st Cir. 1977) ("controlled
substances"); see also United States v. Rome, 809 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1987).
45 Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 141 (1990); Maryland v. Buie, 494
U.S. 325, 330 (1990); Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987); Texas v.
Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741-44 (1983); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S.
443, 466-71 (1971).
46 Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 486 (1965); Steel v. United States, 267
U.S. 498, 504 (1925).
47 United States v. Lunt, 732 F. Supp. 599,603 (W.O. Pa. 1990).
48 Morris v. United States, 507 U.S. 988, 977 F.2d 677, 680-82 (1st Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1588 (1993).
49 See State v. Herbst, 395 N.W.2d 399 (Minn. App. (1986) (warrant
containing no description of narcotics to be seized found defective). See also
Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984).
50 See Thompson v. State, 16 Md. App. 560, 298 A.2d 458 (1973); United
States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971); People v. Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483,
438 N.Y.S.2d 754, 420 N.E.2d 946 (1981); Stale v. Lair, 95 Wash. 2d 706,
630 P.2d 427 (1981).
51 See Thompson v. State, 16 Md. App. 560,298 A.2d 458,461-62 (profit
motive of C.I. provided circumstantial degree ofreliability).
52 See Wesley v. State, 162 Ga. App. 737, 293 S.b.2d 27, 28 (1982)
(informant did not reveal how he knew facts he reported).
53 Narcotics Investigator's Manual, .Undercover Operations Ch. 10 (1974),
at 100. Produced by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of
Operations and Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police.
54 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 246 (1983). See also Massachusetts v.
Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 733 (1984). See, however, Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S.
730, 742 (1983) (plurality opinion of Rehnquist, J.) (probable cause "does not
demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than
false"); United States v. Wayne, 903 F.2d 1188, 1196 (8th Cir. 1990) (same);
United States v. Morales, 851 F. Supp. 112, 115 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ('1a
probability or substantial chance of criminal activity"); Elliott v. State, 597 So.
2d 916, 918 (Fla. App. 1992) ("more likely than not"); State v. Sorbel, 858

89
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

P.2d 814, 817 (Idaho App. 1993) ("substantial probability"); People v.


Johnson, 605 N.E.2d 98, 103 (Ill. App. 1992) ("probability, and not a prirna
facie showing"); State v. Grimes, 519 N.W.2d 507, 513 (Neb. 1994)
11
( probable cause, or reasonable suspicion founded upon articulable facts");

State v. Wilson, 4 Neb. App. 489., 546 N.W.2d 323 (1996); State v. Flores,
512 N.W.2d 128, 132 (Neb. 1994) ("Probable cause is reasonable suspicion
founded on articulable facts."); State v. Wilkinson, 612 A.2d 926, 928 (N.H.
1992) ('"Probable cause to search exists if a [person] of ordinary caution
would be justified in believing that what is sought will be found in the place
to be searched.'"); State v. Riggs, 400 S. ,E.2d 429, 433-34 (N.C. 1991) ("fair
probability or substantial chance"); State v. Erickson, 496 N.W.2d 555, 558
(N.D. 1993) ("probable cause to search exists if it is established that certain
identifiable objects are probably connected with criminal activity and are
probably to be found at the present time at an identifiable place"); State v.
Chambless, 824 P.2d 1183, 1185 (Or. App. 1992) (required showing is "more
likely than not"); State v. Baldoni, 609 A.2d 219, 220 (R.I. 1992)
("probability"); State v. Platt, 574 A.2d 789, 793 (Vt. 1990) ("more likely than
not").
55 Illinois v. Gates, 462 ,U.S. 213,238 (1983).
56 United States v. Cuomo, 479 F.2d 688 (2d Cir 1973).
57 Use of C.I lo Make an Undercover Buy, VIII A 2, Cooperating Individual
Management, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Training,
Quantica, VA.
58 DEA Agents Manual Ch. 61.
59 Use of a CJ to Make a U. C. Buy, VIII(A)( 4), Cooperating Individual
Management, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Training,
Quantica, VA.
59.1 See United States v. McMillan, 508 F.2d 101, 106 (1974).
60 United States v. Miles, 772 F.2d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476
U.S. 1158 reh'g denied, 478 U.S. 1032 (1986) (considering totality of evidence,
warrant was not stale; property was shown to be stolen only two weeks
before, so it was likely still there; omission of when informant saw it thus not
fatal).
Where the object held does not have a ready market or has an enduring
personal use, the standards of staleness are somewhat relaxed. Gerdes v. State,
319 N.W.2cl 710, 713 (Minn. 1982); Evans v. State, 161 Ga. App. 468, 288
S.E.2d 726, 729, appeal after remand, 166 Ga. App. 602, 305 S.E.2d 121
(1982). (that defendant was chopping up cars ten days ago was not stale);
United States v. McCall, 740 F.2cl 1331, 1336-37 (4th Cir. 1984) (two month

90
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

delay in looking for gun; found to be close question, but nature of gun-being
governmental property-made it probable it was still there);
United States v. Shomo, 786 F.2d 981, 984 (10th Cir. 1986) (ten days in
gun case not stale);
United States v. Bascara, supra.
Commonwealth v. Klimkowicz, 331 Pa. Super. 75, 479 A.2d l 086, l 089
(1984) (five weeks not stale in stolen gun case);
United States v. Batchelder, 824 F.2d 563 (7th Cir. 1987) (information
nine months old concerning the purchase of silencer was not stale since affiant
indicated that of twenty-one similar searches, nineteen resulted in seizures);
Cauchon v. United States, 824 F.2d 908 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S.
957 (1987) (eleven-month lapse between tip and warrant did not make the
information stale since the tip concerned the manufacture of controlled
substance and the agents had observed shipments of chemicals to the facility
for several months);
United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir. 1986) (warrant
based on information of trafficking three weeks earlier not stale);
Baty v. State, 401 So. 2d 308, 310 (Ala. App. 1981) (two days in drug case
not stale);
People v. Brown, 166 Cal. App. 3d 1166, 212 Cal. Rptr 907, 909 (1985)
(six- week-old information defendant had two-inch tall marijuana plants was
not stale "considering the size of the plants when first seen.");
Franklin v. State, 179 Ga. App. 220, 345 S.E.2d 912, 913 (1986) (seven
days in ongoing drug operation was not stale);
State v. Fleniken, 451 So. 2d 1342, 1345 (La. App. 1984) (statement from
informant that there was small quantity of drugs on premises two days
earlier is not probable cause to believe greater quantity is there to support a
search warrant);
Commonwealth v. Reddington, 395 Mass. 315, 480 N.E.2d 6 (1985) (seven-
month-old representation defendant had drugs in house was stale; also,
(information was not acted on when it was first heard);
State v. Velishek, 410 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. App. 1987) (one and one-half
months in marijuana cultivation case not stale);
State v. Lindsey, 58 N.C. App. 564,293 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1982) (year-old
information in drug case);
State v. Jannetta, 355 N.W.2d 189, 193-94 (Minn. App. 1984) (child
sexual abuse case and evidence sought was child pornography on two-year-
old information; age of person giving information is a factor of determining
staleness; this was evidence which had enduring criminal utility so the
information was not stale);

91
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

State v. Tate, 407 So. 2d 1133, 1136 (La. 1981) (two-month-old


information that suspect had stolen property in rented storage building was
not stale where suspect still rented it, where objects had enduring utility,
and offense was of a continuing nature).
61 Their testimony would merely be cumulative. See United States v. Scafe,
822 F.2d 428, 928 (10th Cir. 1987). See also United States v. Freeman, 816
F.2d 558, 562 (10th Cir. 1987),·United States v. FVilson, 107 F.3d 774 (10th
Cir. 1997), detective's testimony about observations of interaction between
defendant and informant during "controlled buy" did not constitute
hearsay.
62 United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965).
63 McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300 (1967); see also Roviaro v. United
States., 353 U.S. 53, IL. Ed.2d 639, 77 S. Ct. 623 (1957). Known as the
"informant's privilege," it allows for the prosecution to keep the informant
confidential.
64 See United States v. Di Caro, 772 F .2d 1314 (7th Cir. 1985) ( dealing
with witness "amnesia").
65 DEA Agents Manual Ch. 66.
66Id.
67 Id.
68 Id
69 id
70 Id Ch. 6612.
71 ATP Investigative Priorities, Procedures and Techniques 43(b )(I )(2).
72 U.S. Customs Service Criminal investigator Handbook Ch. 41.
73 See People v. Lucente, 506 N.E.2d 1269 (Ill. 1987). Court skeptical
about detective abandoning informant records.
74 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c).
75 On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, (1952).
76 United States v. Haimowitz, 725 F.2d 1561 (11 Cir. 1984).
77 Narcotics Investigators Manual, Undercover Operations, Ch. 10,
Produced by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and International
Association of Chiefs of Police.

What is important to note when reviewing the above standards as


compared to DEFENDANTS' documented actions in targeting the victim, and

92
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

coercing him into the role of undercover CI, whether or not he had the knowledge
and experience to qualify for the role, is that the primary thrust of the use of the
controlled buy, is to progress a narcotic investigation into sources of supply and
bigger and more important dealers.
Also important to note is that one of the really significant dangers of using
Cls desperate to save themselves by producing an arrest, to conduct controlled
buys of small amounts of drugs, is the possibility of the informant concealing
small amount of druys in a body orifice, and then claiming that he obtained it
from the target. Defendants, not only avoided doing a body cavity search, that is
a national professional standard, but documented almost nothing of an
undercover procedure that should have been documented thoroughly and
meticulously towards the obtaining of sufficient probable cause for a search
warrant, and/ or, for trial testimony. In short, WEBER'S informants could have
gotten away with anything. The totality of this continues to be further indicatiori
that the enforcement of narcotic laws was definitely not the purpose of WEBER'S
targeting of ANDREW SADEK. The young man's life was targeted to be nothing
more than a statistic.
Comparing DEFENDANTS' investigative actions, and/ or, lack: thereof to the
above investigative mandates reveals no interest whatsoever in SADEK, other
than just another arrest and informant statistic to be used to"Justify" the
continued receipt by DEFENDANTS offederal and other fundinq monies; the
totality of which continues to present ha ha elements ofprobable cause indicative
of a situ.ation of systemic, and/ or, endemic corruption, meriting referral to the
appropriate independent federal investigative agency for consideration of a
criminal investigation.

On 11/21/13, Andrew SADEK consented to a search of his dorm by


SEMCA-extraordinary and excessive use of force and police authority:

93
TRIAL" MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

38, Case Report 13-092 by DEP WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13


On Thursday, November 21, 2013, at approximately 1:50pm, Agents for
the SEMCA Drug Task Force did a consent search on a dorm room on
NDSCS Campus. The dorm room was#- in Nordgaard Hall. The room
was occupied by Andrew John SADEK and A-J- ~- During
the consent search, officers located a orange plastic grinder with
marijuana residue on the inside. This was taken as evidence. This offence
occurred in the City of Wahpeton, County of Richland, and the State of
North Dakota. (p. 1, Item 50)

DEP. WEBER documents in his report about confronting SADEK at his


dorm room on 11/21/ 13, two full months after the controlled buys with
no other investigative action documented; nor, inexplicably, is this
confrontation recorded by WEBER:
39. Case Re_g_grt 13-092 by DEP WEBER dated l l /22/ 13
On Thursday, November 21, 2013, at approximately 1:50pm, Agent John
Smykowski and I, Agent Jason WEBER, went to NDSCS Campus to talk
with Andrew John SADEK DOB: --93. Andrew is staying on campus
in Nordgaard Hall in Room - - At approximately 1 :50pm, I knocked
on the door to Andrew SADEK's room. SADEK's roommate, Aall
J-K.111111 DOB: --93 answered the door. I asked for SADEK
and K.111111 opened the door all the way and KIii pointed out SADEK
who was sleeping in his bed. SADEK got up to talk to us. I took SADEK
out into the hallway and informed him that we were there because of
drug activity corning from his dorm room. I asked him if he knew
anything about it. SAD EK stated that he did. I asked SADEK if he
smokes marijuana and he stated that he did. I asked him if his

94
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

roommate smokes marijuana and he was hesitant to tell me, but then
stated that he did. (p. 1-2, Item 50)

Before the 11/21/13 search, DEP WEBER then questions SADEK and his
roommate KIIIII about smoking marijuana, again, without a warrant,
without an arrest:
40. Case Report 13-092 by DEP WEBER dated 11/22/13
We all went back in to the room and I explained to KIii what was going
on and that we were there because of complaints of drug activity, I asked
K- if he knew what I was talking about and he stated that we [sic]
did. I asked both SA DEK and 1<111111 when the last time they used and
they stated about a week ago. (p. 2, Item 50)
Note: Item 40. WEBER) does not report asking any questions about SADEK
selling any quantities of marijuana in the past. Statements by the victim,
supported by his roommate, indicating that he had never sold marijuana prior to
meeting WEBERS team of informants would present yet additional evidence of
entrapment, and/ or, an informant "frame up." What is captured here is) at best,
the avoidance of "bad evidence," at worst) weather aiding and abetting his Cls
criminality,
SADEK and KIIIII then allegedly consent to a search of their dorm room:
41. Case Report 13-092 by DEP WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13
I asked them both if there was anything in the room that should not be
in the room. They both stated that there was not. I asked them both for
consent to search the room and they both agreed. (p.2, Item 50)

During the 11/21/13 search, DEP WEBER locates a marijuana grinder in


SADEK'S dorm room, but does not arrest SADEK for possession of
marijuana paraphernalia:

95
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY-- CONFIDENTIAL

42. Case Report 13-092 by DEP WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13


In searching the room, I located an orange plastic grinder with marijuana
residue in it. This was located in the middle drawer of SADEK1s desk on
the west wall. SADEK stated that it was his and that he forgot that it was
in there. I informed SADEK that I was taking the grinder and that I was
not going to arrest him at this time for it. (p.2, Item 50)

DEP WEBER omits from his report that he spoke to SADEK for 10 minutes
alone, after~ was released by police to go to class:
43. Case Report 13-092 by DEP WEBER dated 11 /22/13
Officers left and SADEK was going to class. (p.2, Item 50)

DEP WEBER admits during his deposition that he spoke to SADEK for at
least 10 minutes after~ went to class:
44. DEP JASON WEBER Deposition dated 10/ 17 /17:
Q Did you make any other observations or obtain any other evidence
concerning marijuana use or sale involving Andrew SADEK between April
of 2013 and the time of searching his dorm in November of 2013?
A No. Our next contact was the dorm room search.
Q What led you to that situation of searching his dorm room?
A So, obviously we had these deals on Andrew. He had went home for the
summer. When he came back, we had went to his dorm room on
November 21st, myself and Officer Smykowski, and we went up to
Andrew's dorm. Andrew was in the room with his roommate. We end up
getting consent to search the dorm room where we found the orange
plastic marijuana grinder in a drawer that was Andrew SADEK's side of
the room. They had beds on both sides. It was a typical dorm room. Once
we found that, Andrew did admit that that was his grinder. At that point,

96
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

we had released~ Klllllil[SIC], because it was 1:00 or 2:00,


and I think they both had to get to class. We let~ go to class,
and we stuck around and talked with Andrew SADEK for about
roughly ten more minutes, let him know, without his roommate
present, we let him know that we had some deliveries on him. And at
that point, we were giving him an opportunity to help himself out and
become a confidential informant, and we end up letting him go to
class, It was decided that he would think about it and come in the next
day. We let him go to class, so he wouldn't be any later than what he
already was.
(Lines 24-25 p. 60, Lines 1-25 p. 61, and Lines 1-6 p. 62 Item 10)

Note 44: There is no indication that this conversation was recorded or


documented in any way. Ijit wasn't for the deposition, no one would knoui that
the conversation with SADEK took place besides DEP WEBER himself. This
continues a running theme for DEP. WEBER, to document as little as possible,
which is a classic element ofprobable cause indicative of corruption; one of many
documented in this report that went unheeded by any element of DEFENDANT
MANAGEMENT.
Found in SADEK'S dorm room; the only pathetic "evidence," yielded by
WEBER's extraordinary misuse of funding and tactics intended for the
investigation of drug traffickers:
45. Marijuillla Grinder Photo 13-092 by DEP WEBER._dated 11 /21 / 13

97
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Photograph of orange marijuana grinder. ( 1 page, Item 48)

On 11/21/ 13, DEP WEBER completed a Drug Inventory and Receipt


Report:
46. Drug Inventory and Receipt Case 13-092 by DEP WEBER:
11/21/ 13 3:20PM, Orange Grinder with marijuana residue in it, found
in SADEK'S desk in dorm room. (p.1, Item 52).

On 11/21/13, DEP WEBER completed an Incident Report on Case 13-092,


which does not contain a narrative:
47. Incident Report for 13-092 date 11 /21 /13 byDEP WEBER:
SEMCA: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia: Orange Grinder with
marijuana residue
Value: $2. Subject: Andrew SADEK
Status: No prosecution.
Narrative: [blank]. (p.1-2, Item 51)

On 11/22/13, the following day, WEBER stated in his Deposition that


SADEK signed up to be a Confidential Informant:
48. DEF JASON WEBER Deposition dated 10 / 1 7 / 17:
He finished out that day, and then came in the next day on the 22nd to do
the interview and sign up as a confidential informant.
(Lines 7-9 p. 62)
Q And so it was November 22nd, it was the next day?
A It was the very next day that he came in.
Q Did he just show up, or did he contact your beforehand?
A I believe he just, I believe he just showed up.
Q Do you remember what time he showed up?

98
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

A I believe it was in the morning. I don't know the exact time. I don't know.
Sometime late morning I'm guessing.
Q When he showed up, what happened then?
A So when he showed up, he was brought in.to the interview room, and
immediately went into the recorded interview.

Comment/analysis, Item 38-48:


The use offorce continuum is a training tool used by the majority ofpolice
departments throughout the United States. It is important tu note that it begins
with the very presence of a police officer. The presence of a police officer at your
door, without any warrant justifying his presence, by itself is a coercive and
frightening act offorce to most citizens. To a 20-year-old20 college student, away
from the protection of his family for the first time the amount offear and
disorientation he felt it being confronted by WEBER threatening him with the very
destruction of his young life by a lengthy jail time, is unimaginable. Yet, the very
fact that WERBER, aided and abetted by named and as yet unnamed
DEFENDANTS, timed his appearance at the victims dorm room, to happen two
months into the semester to maximize the amount of stress the young college
student would experience, thereby making it almost a sure thing he would quickly
and easily agree to becoming an undercover criminal informant and another
SEMCA (and WEBER) statistic, provides yet another element of probable cause in
support of all my stated opinions (above).
The totality of evidence presented throughout this report, support my
opinion that WEBER'S use of what law enforcement commonly refers to as a
"knock: and talk:" (coercive) confrontation for nothing more then the acquisition of
an arrest and recruited-informant statistic to be used for SE.MCA 'S continued
qualification for federal funding can only be qualified as an abuse ofpolice

° For the purposes of consistency, SAD EK i~ referred to in this report as a 20 year-old.


2

However, prior to 11/22/ 13, the day of the interrogation, he was 19 years old.

99
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE· SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

authority, and the unwarranted and brutal use offorce, albeit psychological, with
the reason.able likelihood of a violent death, as did happen.

On 11/22/ 13 WEBER conducted a video and audio recorded interview


with SADEK:
49. I_p.terview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13
This interview is not transcribed nor did WEBER make even
a summary report of the interview. The following excerpts were taken after
analyzing the audio/video:

WEBER leads with the threat of maximum sentence of 40 years and


$40,000 in fines and in violation of every standard I have ever taught or
been been exposed to throughout my five decade career, continues to
threaten the victim with significant prison time unless SADEK agrees to
become an undercover criminal informant:
50. Interview of SAD EK by WEBER dated 11 /22 / 13
WEBER: Like I said, you're facing two felonies and then of course a
misdemeanor charge from yesterday. Two felonies, of deliveries since they
took place on campus, both of them, they're enhanced, twenty years in
prison, $20,000 fine [indiscernible]. So potentially the ma'< is 40 years in
prison, $40,000 fine. Do you understand that?
SADEK: Yeah.
WEBER: Obviously you're probably not going to get 40 years, but is there
a good possibility you're going to get prison time? If you don't help yourself
out, yeah there is. That's probably not a way to start off your young adult
life and career right?
SADEK: [nods affirmatively]

100
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE· SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

WEBER: Alright so, what I'm going to ask for you to do, is to do some buys
for me then. Where you'd have to wear a wire, you'd have to go buy
marijuana from individuals and then you know, dependent upon how you
do and so forth, you know, a lot of this could go away. You know, is it all
going to go away? Probably not. Are you gonna have to probably plead
guilty lo a misdemeanor, possession of marijuana? Probably, you know.
But at least you're not pleading guilty to felonies, Okay? Is that fair
enough?
SADEK: [nods affirmatively]
(audio, Item 6)

SADEK begins to name who he can purchase marijuana from:


51. Interview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13
WEBER: Is there individuals around campus or town that you lmow you
could buy from?
SADEK: There's one chick that sells out of the campus apartments I know.
WEBER: Who's that?
SADEK: I'm not sure the name but [indiscernible]
WEBER: And who are those buddies?
SADEK: Just one. GIii ~.
WEBER: GIii ~?
(audio, Item 6)
SADEK says there is no one else locally he can buy from:
52. Interview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13
WEBER: Okay. Anybody else you CELD buy from?
SADEK: In town?
WEBER: Yeah.
SADEK: No. Not in this town.

101
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

WEBER: What other town can you buy in?


SADEK: Fargo.
WEBER: Who do you know in Fargo?
SADEK: Guy named I- .
WEBER: Okay, how much can you get from him?
SADEK: You can get quite a bit.
WEBER: What's quite a bit?
SADEK: Like 2-3 ounces.
WEBER: Would it be uncommon for you to buy that much though?
SADEK: Yeah.
WEBER: I mean, if you went and bought that much would be be like "what
the hell?"
SADEK: Probably. Maybe. I don't know.
WEBER: If you went and bought an ounce?
SADEK: That would be more reasonable.
WEBER: That would be more reasonable to say you're trying to sell, make
some money on campus.
SADEK: Yeah.
WEBER: We could entertain that idea, trying to set you up with Fargo.
That's a different Task Force but if you're willing to help them out. I can
give you a credit down here. You can't buy from anybody else?
SADEK: No. I mean I have a lot of people I can talk lo and find out buyers
but no.
WEBER: Because you're going to have to do more than just two
people to get the felony levels down.
SADEK: I understand,
(audio, Item 6)

102
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

Comment/ analysis, Item 49-52:


WEBER, provides yet additional elements ofprobable cause indicative of
the targeting of the victim, and others, being solely for the purpose of acquiring
arrest and informant statistics to maintain the flow of Federal and other funding,
and that the targeting of Mr. SADEK himself, is part of a much bigger and more
extensive pattern of this illegal activity having as it's goal, the receipt offederal
and other funding.
SADE~ above, gives WEBER "rail LNU's" phone number and
description of the car. Note: According to the materials received, WEBER did not
rail
conduct any investigation into identifying or locating SADEK'S source,
LNU WEBER does not instruct SADEK to conduct any buys from rail LNU
even though SADEK said IIIIIILNU sells large quantities of marijuana. What is
also significant here as pertaining to my opinions, is the fact that, according to the
rail LNU was able to supply three to 4 ounces of marijuana, the amount
victim,
that HIii was arrested carrying, by WEBER himself. WEBER, astonishingly,
does not even request any details that SADEK might have about the man who
allegedly supplied the victim with marijuana. This provides, uihen. considering
the totality of evidence cited in this report, additional elements ofprobable cause,
and/ or, reasons to believe, that WEBER is protecting SADEK'S source of supply .
.Further: SADEK telling WEBER, that the dealer in Fargo might- become suspicious
if he, SADEK, tried to buy more than a casual user amount of marijuana,
presents yet additional evidence of the young man's total inexperience in the
commerce of marijuana sales prior to him being targeted by WEBER'S team of
informants, and more importantly, of the reckless disregard of this young man's
safety demonstrated by Weber coercing him into accepting the role of an
undercover criminal informant, a role that would result in his violent death. The
totality of this could not be more evincive of an endemic level of corruption that

103
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

merits the urgent referral of this entire matter to the appropriate independent
federal Agency for criminal investigation.

WEBER continues to use threats to coerce the victim into accepting the
role of undercover criminal informant; also reveals that this type of
illegal, and/or, unethical activity is part of an ongoing pattern of SEMCA's
in general and WEBER'S in particular:
53. Interview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11/22/ 13

J-
WEBER: Okay. You don't know any football players on campus that sells
that you can buy from or anything?
SADEK: No. There was this guy last year, named that I bought
from a couple times.
WEBER: Okay. But he's not there anymore?
SADEK: Not sure, haven't contacted him.
WEBER: Well, we'll sign you up but its up to you to make your contacts
and we'll go from there. You know, you got two felonies hanging over
your head, so we're going to probably look at doing, each individual
we do we got need to get two deals on. So you 're going to have to do
two deals off per individual. And then we're probably going to be
looking for 3-4 individuals that you're going to have to do. Okay?
SADEK: Okay.
WEBER: Is that fair enough.
SADEK: [nods slightly]
WEBER: I mean, it sounds like you already got two for sure that you can
do and it's just a matter of doing two more.
SADEK: Alright.
(audio, Item 6)

104
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

WEBER attempts to coerce the victim into going after hard drugs, with
which the victim has little or no experience, which, again, is of no
concern to WEBER:
54. Interview of SAD EK by WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13
WEBER: Do you use anything other than marijuana? Have you tried
anything other than marijuana?
SADEK: Yeah.
WEBER: What have you tried?
SADEK: LSD.
WEBER: LSD? How did you like that?
SADEK: I didn't like it at all.
WEBER: Where did you get that at?
SADEK: From my buddy in Fargo.
WEBER: So you can buy LSD in Fargo. Or, can you buy anything other
than marijuana?
SADEK: [nods head negatively]
WEBER: Not saying that its for you but can you say that it's for a buddy?
SADEK: I could try.
WEBER: Okay.
(audio, Item 6)

While reviewing the Informant Agreement, WEBER tells that if he gets


arrested while working as an informant, not to tell police that he is an
informant working for BCI:
55. Interview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11/22/13
WEBER: Do you understand you are not to divulge to any person, except
the agent with whom you are associated, you status as Confidential
Informant for the Bureau Of Criminal Investigation and that you will not

105
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

use your association with the Bureau of Criminal Investigation to resolve


your personal problems? Now what that is, basically if you get jammed up
or in trouble with the police or anything, don't tell them, any law
enforcement officers that you are associated with me, at the time.
Whatever you did, take your lumps and then you call me afterwards. Okay
then we will work it out.
SADEK: [nods affirmatively]
WEBER: Not that we don't trust cops, it's just you're not going to throw
that card out there. On the second token is, you can't tell anybody that
you are working for me. For obvious reasons.
SADEK: [nods affirmatively]
WEBER: Try not to tell your roommate, anybody because the more people
that know, if that word gets out, if they know what you do, you know as
well as I do that they're going to think you're a narc and nobody's going to
work with you. I mean nobody will touch you and of course if you can't
buy dope, you're not good to me. Okay, do you understand that?
SADEK: Alright. I understand.
(audio, Item 6)

WEBER continues to threaten SADEK with the pending charges and states
he will throw SADEK in jail if he loses contact with WEBER:
56. Interview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13
WEBER: Do you understand that you are to report to me, who you are
assigned to work with you on a continuous basis while actively associated
with the Bureau of Criminal Investigation? You're going to have to check in
with me every so often, that we see fit. If you don't check in with me, or
if I lose contact with you, I'm just going to assume that you don't
want to work anymore and then I'mjust going to cut the warrants

106
MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

for your arrest. And I'll throw you in jail. So you're gonna have to
keep, you know, not on a daily basis but every few days you're just check
in to say "hey, this is what I found out" or "I'm working on this" or "I
maybe got nothing" but you're going to have to check in with me and we'll
go over that when we're done. You understand that?
SADEK: Yes.
(Audio, Item 6)

57. Interview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11/22/ 13


WEBER: Do you understand that no promises can be made to you about
court appearances and that you may have to appear in court if the
circumstances so require? Okay what that is basically, you're going to do
these deals, you are our state witness okay. If they take it to a jury trial,
you may have to come back and testify against the individual that
you purchased narcotics from. Do you understand that? Now, with
that, I know there's some hesitation but, I've been doing this a long
time, my partner has been doing this a long time, we have never ever
had anybody come back to testify yet. The reason for that is 1: that's
why we do two buys on an individual. It secures up the cases and really
makes them strong, so two things happen. 1: they either take a plea
agreement, or number 2, they end up working like in your situation. I
might give them that opportunity to work and then they don't have to
come back so on and so forth. We never had anybody have to testify.
I'm just telling you, could it happen? It could happen. We've just
never had that because nobody really want to go to the jury trial and
chance that they're going to get 40 years in prison.
(Audio, Item 6)

107
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL

After telling SADEK he has to go through his contacts and set up the
buys, WEBER also tells SADEK he needs to identify the people he is
buying from for WEBER. WEBER is essentially instructing SADEK to do
his job for him, greatly increasing the likelihood of this young an
untrained College student being recognized as an informant along with
the equally likely violent results thereto:
58. Interview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11/22/ 13
WEBER: See what you can get lined up. Okay? And then the biggest thing
is about lining up deals, its up to you to kinda somewhat line them up.
But don't make anything definite.
SEDAK: Okay.
WEBER: The reason I say that is because we got 4 agents that I work with,
we are, you are not like the only CI, we are working with other people and
we work a big area. So if you call me up and go "hey I can do a deal in 5
minutes," I'm probably going to tell you no. Ain't gonna happen. You know
because I just can't get the rest of my guys around in 5 minutes, so on
and so forth. So the best way to do it is try to line something up and hey
like right now "hey you got some stuff, you know, can I come over?" And
try and line it up for 5 hours out. You know a good way is to text me in the
morning or the night before.
(22:20 minute marker, Item 6)
WEBER: The biggest thing to is when you do start if you don't know
these people, the biggest thing is to try and find out who these people
are that you are buying from too because you can't just buy from
people you don't know -
SEDAK: Fair enough. Ts there a certain amount that you want me to
purchase or do anything?

108