Court: District Court, W.D. New York; September 25, 2014; Federal District Court
Defendant Jonathan Fernandes faces a 13-count indictment related to drug crimes, specifically the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine, alongside possession and firearm charges. The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman for pretrial motions. The indictment includes counts for manufacture (21 U.S.C. 841), possession with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. 841), maintaining a drug-related premises (21 U.S.C. 856), possession of firearms in connection with drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. 924), possession of manufacturing materials (21 U.S.C. 843), and possession of a controlled substance (21 U.S.C. 844).
Following a July 11, 2014, filing by the Defendant seeking various forms of relief—including a bill of particulars, suppression of search warrants, and dismissal of certain counts—Judge Feldman held a hearing on August 7, 2014. He ruled on several motions, recommending the denial of the motions to dismiss counts four and eight, and to suppress evidence related to search warrants and identification testimony. On August 12, 2014, he issued a written Report and Recommendation affirming these rulings. The Defendant objected on August 26, 2014, specifically regarding the denial of a Franks hearing to challenge the validity of statements in warrant applications for his residence.
A district court conducts a de novo review of specific objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation, as established by Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). This review applies only to those objections that are specific and directed at particular findings. If objections are not filed, the court is not obligated to review those sections of the report. A timely failure to object may waive further judicial review if the parties were adequately informed of this consequence.
In the case at hand, the defendant challenges Judge Feldman’s denial of his request for a Franks hearing, asserting that false statements were included in the search warrant applications related to a confidential informant, Samuel Hackett. The defendant presents "guest check" evidence, a restaurant receipt allegedly indicating that Hackett did not wear a wire or purchase methamphetamine from him. Judge Feldman dismissed this evidence as insufficient to meet the defendant's burden under Franks, describing it as unclear and not constituting an affidavit. The court denied the motion without prejudice, allowing the defendant to further investigate and potentially provide a more comprehensive affidavit in the future. A Franks hearing is warranted if the defendant demonstrates that a materially false statement was included in the warrant affidavit, which is critical to establishing probable cause, per the ruling in Franks v. Delaware.
To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must provide more than conclusory claims regarding the search warrant's contents; specific allegations of intentional falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth are required, along with supporting proof. This includes pinpointing the false portions of the warrant affidavit and providing affidavits or reliable statements from witnesses, or satisfactorily explaining their absence. Claims of negligence or innocent mistakes do not suffice. The defendant must demonstrate that there were intentional, material misrepresentations or omissions necessary to the probable cause determination, with a presumption of validity for the affidavit. If a Franks hearing is granted, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the false statements materially affected the probable cause. The threshold for a Franks hearing is high, necessitating a substantial preliminary showing of knowingly false statements or those made with reckless disregard for the truth. In this case, the defendant's argument regarding guest check evidence lacks the necessary context or supporting affidavits and fails to meet the burden for a Franks hearing, as noted by Judge Feldman. The guest check's unclear nature further complicates the argument, leading to the conclusion that the defendant has not made a substantial preliminary showing.
Defendants’ request for a Franks hearing was denied as they failed to provide sufficient proof, such as an affidavit from a reliable witness, and did not present legal support for their claims regarding omissions in the warrant application. The court adopted Judge Feldman’s recommendation to deny the motion for a Franks hearing without prejudice, allowing the possibility for reconsideration if the defendants later submit additional supportive materials.
The court also accepted Judge Feldman’s recommendations on other key issues to which the defendant did not object. Specifically, the defendant's motions to dismiss counts four and eight of the indictment and to suppress identification testimony were addressed. The motion to dismiss was denied because the indictment did not need to specify the firearms involved under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), as identifying a specific firearm is not a requisite element of the charge.
Regarding the motion to suppress identification testimony, the defendant argued that the identification procedures were unduly suggestive. However, the government indicated it would not use the challenged identifications but would instead rely on in-court identifications from witnesses who had personal relationships with the defendant. The court ordered the government to provide affidavits detailing each witness's relationship with the defendant at least 30 days before trial, adopting Judge Feldman's directive in this matter.
Defendant's motion to suppress search warrants related to two searches at his home was denied. Judge Feldman determined that there was "ample probable cause" based on the supporting affidavits, which are required to justify the issuance of a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The affidavits included opinions from law enforcement officials experienced in drug investigations, asserting that the Defendant was involved in manufacturing, distributing, and possessing methamphetamine. Additionally, the affidavits included testimony from confidential informants who had previously purchased drugs from the Defendant and observed drugs and firearms at his residence. The Court emphasized that an expert agent's opinion on the behavior of drug traffickers—who often keep evidence of their crimes at home—was a significant factor in establishing probable cause. The decision referenced several precedents affirming that such expert testimony supports probable cause determinations. Ultimately, the Court upheld the search warrant applications based on the evidence presented and adopted Judge Feldman’s Report and Recommendation in full, denying the Defendant's motion to suppress as well as his request for a Franks hearing without prejudice.
