United States v. Gerrish

D. Maine

United States v. Gerrish

231 F. Supp. 2d 381, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23199, 2002 WL 31696710

CourtDistrict Court, D. Maine

DecidedDecember 2, 2002

DocketCRIM.02-93-P-H

StatusPublished

This text of 231 F. Supp. 2d 381 (United States v. Gerrish) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Gerrish, 231 F. Supp. 2d 381, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23199, 2002 WL 31696710 (D. Me. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER ON DEFENDANT LISA GERRISH’S MOTION TO SEVER AND DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

HORNBY, District Judge.

Lisa Gerrish’s motion to sever is Denied. She and Blaine Gerrish were properly joined as defendants under Fed. R.Crim.P. 8(b) because the Indictment charges them with being members of the *382 same conspiracy.- She requests severance under Rule 14, but the only asserted prejudice is “prejudicial spillover of evidence offered against her co-defendant. There is a particular heightened risk in this matter because the defendants are married.” She goes on to assert that the government’s evidence is “overwhelmingly directed” at her husband. She does not assert that the evidence is admissible only against her husband. Her showing therefore is insufficient. United States v. Houle, 237 F.3d 71, 75-6 (1st Cir.2001).

Lisa and Blaine Gerrish’s joint motion to suppress evidence is Denied. No evidentiary hearing is necessary, because the state judge issued a warrant based upon a written affidavit. The only issue is whether the affidavit, detailing drug activity by these two defendants at one address and requesting a warrant to search the Gerrishes’ residence, a different address, provided probable cause. The affidavit provided evidence of extensive weekend drug trafficking by the Gerrishes in a trailer they owned and previously lived in. At the time of the warrant application, the affidavit provided information that the trailer was currently inhabited by Blaine Gerrish’s brother-in-law. It was eminently reasonable to believe that the proceeds, as well as some of the relevant records of the Gerrishes’ weekend drug trafficking, would be kept at the Gerrishes’ principal residence. United States v. Feliz, 182 F.3d 82, 87-88 (1st Cir.1999). In any event, the good faith exception would certainly apply to this judge-issued warrant. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). None of the Leon exceptions applies.

So Ordered.

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

ORDER ON DEFENDANT LISA GERRISH’S MOTION TO SEVER AND DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

HORNBY, District Judge.

Lisa Gerrish’s motion to sever is Denied. She and Blaine Gerrish were properly joined as defendants under Fed. R.Crim.P. 8(b) because the Indictment charges them with being members of the *382 same conspiracy.- She requests severance under Rule 14, but the only asserted prejudice is “prejudicial spillover of evidence offered against her co-defendant. There is a particular heightened risk in this matter because the defendants are married.” She goes on to assert that the government’s evidence is “overwhelmingly directed” at her husband. She does not assert that the evidence is admissible only against her husband. Her showing therefore is insufficient. United States v. Houle, 237 F.3d 71, 75-6 (1st Cir.2001).

Lisa and Blaine Gerrish’s joint motion to suppress evidence is Denied. No evidentiary hearing is necessary, because the state judge issued a warrant based upon a written affidavit. The only issue is whether the affidavit, detailing drug activity by these two defendants at one address and requesting a warrant to search the Gerrishes’ residence, a different address, provided probable cause. The affidavit provided evidence of extensive weekend drug trafficking by the Gerrishes in a trailer they owned and previously lived in. At the time of the warrant application, the affidavit provided information that the trailer was currently inhabited by Blaine Gerrish’s brother-in-law. It was eminently reasonable to believe that the proceeds, as well as some of the relevant records of the Gerrishes’ weekend drug trafficking, would be kept at the Gerrishes’ principal residence. United States v. Feliz, 182 F.3d 82, 87-88 (1st Cir.1999). In any event, the good faith exception would certainly apply to this judge-issued warrant. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). None of the Leon exceptions applies.

So Ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 F. Supp. 2d 381, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23199, 2002 WL 31696710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gerrish-med-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack