United States v. Files

352 F. Supp. 2d 888, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 970, 2005 WL 147028
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 11, 2005
Docket403CR0008902GH
StatusPublished

This text of 352 F. Supp. 2d 888 (United States v. Files) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Files, 352 F. Supp. 2d 888, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 970, 2005 WL 147028 (E.D. Ark. 2005).

Opinion

*889 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GEORGE HOWARD, JR., District Judge.

Currently pending before the Court is the motion of defendant, Mark Files, (Files) to suppress evidence obtained at approximately 7:20 a.m. on January 21, 2002, from the home of Files pursuant to a search warrant issued by Circuit Judge Baird Kinney on January 21, 2002, at approximately 6:15 a. m., pursuant to an affidavit given by Officer Barry Roy (Officer Roy) of the Arkansas" State Police.

Files contends that the warrant and the execution of the warrant were in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States due to the absence of probable cause due to a deficient affidavit executed by Officer Roy for the following alleged reasons:

(1) On January 21, 2002, at approximately 2:15 a.m., Files was arrested in his vehicle on Highway 49 in Fargo, Arkansas. Just prior to the arrest, Files had met co-defendant, Robert Lahue, at a motel in Brinkley, Arkansas. Lahue was driving a separate car that allegedly contained illegal drugs. Lahue had already been detained by law enforcement officers who monitored the meeting.' Files proceeded north from Brinkley, Lahue followed in his car, and the law enforcement officers stopped Files on Highway 49, there taking him into custody; that Files was not arrested at his home and nothing that occurred during his arrest would suggest even a reasonable basis for believing that incriminating evidence would be located at his house.

(2) There is nothing to support a conclusion beyond mere suspicion that recoverable evidence existed at Files’ home. A portion of the remaining language in the affidavit mentions that Files was arrested in 1997. Part of this information is false. Even assuming it was accurate, an event occurring 5 years in the past certainly could provide, no probable cause to suggest that discoverable contraband currently existed.

(3) Information on page 3 of the affidavit purports to originate from unnamed informants. There is no information in the affidavit to suggest that these informants are reliable, nor is there any reference when the acts described by the informants occurred; and that the substance of information provided by the informants, even if reliable and current, fails to provide sufficient probable cause to suggest that contraband would be found in Files’ home.

(4) The affidavit contains false information and it also omits information that, in fairness, should have been included for the magistrate’s consideration. For example: The affidavit asserts “In December 1997 Files was arrested by Arkansas State Game and Fish officer John Hopkins. At the time of his arrest Files was in possession of methamphetamine and a large amount of cash was seized. Files was with some other known drug users and dealers in a secluded area when they were arrested by Hopkins.” In reality, argues Files, the report prepared regarding this incident reflects that Files was stopped while in his vehicle at night with his common-law wife, Shirley Cummings; that the reason for the stop was suspicion of violating waterfowl laws; that the officer found that Files did have a dead duck in the back of his truck along with guns, wading boots and other hunting gear. The officer also found Shirley Cummings to be in possession of marijuana paraphernalia and a small amount of purported methamphetamine — approximately one half gram. Neither Files nor Cummings were ever formally charged with any crimes arising from this arrest. That in spite of these known facts, Officer Roy stated in the *890 arrest affidavit that “Files was with some other known drug users and dealers ...”

In response to Files’ motion to suppress evidence obtained by search warrant from Files’ home, the Government alleges the following:

(1) The affidavit specifically details that Officer Roy had been receiving information as to Files’ drug activities over a period of five years; that Don Sanders of the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force as well as the officers from the Monroe County Sheriffs Department have been investigating Files’ drug activities for at least four years; and that the affidavit demonstrates that investigators have been provided consistent stories from various independent sources concerning Files’ drug trafficking activities in and around his residence and the Brinkley, Arkansas area.

(2) Officer Roy noted that he had personally received information and conducted interviews of numerous drug associates of Files and learned that Files was receiving large amounts of crystal methamphetamine from a source in California; that Files’ associates told the police that Files would order drugs from California, that the couriers transporting the drugs would come to one of the motels in Brinkley, call Files, and that Files would then meet them and take them to a location to conclude the transaction which, on occasions, included Files’ home.

(3) That the probable cause determination in this action does not rest upon the evaluation of a tip from either an anonymous or a confidential informant alone because the Arkansas State Police, on the day of Files’ arrest, had already seized methamphetamine from co-defendant La-hue hours earlier in Russellville, Arkansas; that Lahue was ' directed to a motel in Brinkley, Arkansas, where he was to have an individual meet him; that after making contacts with his counterparts in California, confirming the scheduled arrangements, co-defendant Lahue was instructed, by an undercover police officer, to wait in the front of the motel for a blue Toyota pickup truck with a boat that would arrive at the motel as Lahue was advised by Lahue’s California associate; that around 1:55 a.m., a bíue Toyota pickup truck occupied and driven by Files approached La-hue and the undercover police officer and told them to follow him; that the vehicle was followed to a location north of the Fargo community where Files resides; that the vehicle was stopped and Files was taken into custody; that Files’ mobile phone was reviewed and a California telephone number was found in the telephone memory which was the same number the investigators received instruction as to whom to deliver the two pounds of methamphetamine to that night; that the information received and the action taken by Files and associate are consistent with the information the police had obtained over the previous five years regarding Files’ drug activities.

(4)The Government concedes that Officer Roy mistakenly recited information in the affidavit regarding the December, 1997 event involving the Arkansas State Game and Fish Agency, Files and his common-law wife. The Government notes that at the time of the preparation of the affidavit, Officer Roy had been provided information concerning two arrests of Files by the Arkansas Game and Fish officers. The second arrest occurred December 15, 1998, when Files, Patrick G. Huff, a known methamphetamine dealer, and David W. Conerly were arrested for illegal night hunting; that Officer Roy mistakenly recited information confusing the details from each of the two arrests thinking that it was a single event rather than reciting the events as. separate occurrences; that Officer Roy did not deliberately or intentionally disregard the truth in his applica *891

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Illinois v. Gates
462 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court, 1983)
United States v. Durile Lee Brown
49 F.3d 1346 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
352 F. Supp. 2d 888, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 970, 2005 WL 147028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-files-ared-2005.