USA v . Levesque CR-94-120-M 07/11/95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal N o . 94-120-01, 02-M Jonathan Levesque and David Boisvert
O R D E R
On December 1 5 , 1994, a federal grand jury returned a four
count indictment against defendants Levesque and Boisvert. Count
One charges that Levesque and Boisvert unlawfully conspired to
possess with the intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §846. Count Two charges that Levesque employed a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking felony, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §924(c). Count Four alleges that Levesque, having
been previously convicted of a felony, unlawfully possessed a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1).1 Before the court
are defendants' motions to suppress various items of evidence.
1 On July 7 , 1995, at the close of the suppression hearing, the government orally informed the court of its agreement to drop Counts Two and Four of the Indictment. Count Three of the Indictment alleged that a third defendant, Robin Boisvert, employed a firearm in furtherance a drug trafficking felony. The government dismissed that Count when the defendant plead guilty to related charges in state court. Accordingly, the sole remaining count of the Indictment is Count One. Background.
On December 8 , 1994, at approximately 12:15 p.m., Trooper
Richard Jimerson of the Kansas Highway Patrol observed a U-Haul
van travelling east on Interstate 7 0 , following closely behind a
Dodge pickup truck with New Hampshire license plates. Trooper Jimerson followed the vehicles for approximately six miles and
ran a routine registration check on the pickup truck, which
revealed that the truck was registered to a person from Concord,
New Hampshire. After watching the U-Haul repeatedly veer over
the right travel lane marker, Trooper Jimerson stopped it for a
traffic violation. The pickup truck did not stop, but continued
travelling east.
Trooper Jimerson approached the driver of the van and told
him why he had been pulled over. The driver, defendant Boisvert,
stated that he was transporting furniture owned by his sister, a
student in Arizona, back to New Hampshire. Trooper Jimerson
observed that Boisvert was very nervous and noted that he had two
hand-held C.B. radios in the cab of the van. He also saw that
Boisvert was wearing a paging device on his belt. The trooper
asked Boisvert to return with him to the cruiser while he
verified the information on Boisvert's license and registration.
2 Trooper Jimerson asked Boisvert if he was traveling to New Hampshire with the pickup truck which he had been following. According to the trooper, Boisvert's nervousness increased and he denied that the two vehicles were traveling together. The check on Boisvert's license and registration revealed that Boisvert had been arrested for possession of narcotics in 1993, in New Hampshire. In response to the trooper's questions, Boisvert denied that he had ever been arrested on narcotics related charges. The trooper returned Boisvert's license and
registration and warned him about his erratic driving. He then asked Boisvert whether the van contained any contraband. Boisvert replied that there was nothing of that sort. Trooper Jimerson asked if Boisvert would mind if he looked in the cargo area of the van. Boisvert responded, "No. [pause] I don't even have the key." He explained that his sister had taken the key with her when she flew back to New Hampshire and left instructions with Boisvert not to open the cargo area. When asked if he would permit the trooper to remove the lock securing the doors to the cargo area, Boisvert answered that he would not. Boisvert did agree, however, to permit a search of the cab of the van.
3 Trooper Jimerson's suspicion was aroused and, after Boisvert
refused to give his consent to a search of the cargo area, he
requested that a drug dog be dispatched to the scene to survey
the van and determine whether drugs might be present in the cargo
area. Approximately 55 minutes after Trooper Jimerson stopped
Boisvert, Trooper Taylor arrived with the drug dog. At the
suppression hearing, Trooper Taylor testified that almost
immediately upon its arrival at the U-Haul, the drug dog "alerted," indicating that it had picked up the scent of drugs in the cargo area. He also testified credibly that based on his knowledge, experience, and training he had absolutely no doubt that the dog communicated to him that contraband was present in the cargo area of the U-Haul. This statement is supported by the video tape recording of the stop, which was made from Trooper Jimerson's cruiser. The video shows Trooper Taylor directing the drug dog around the U-Haul and, upon completing that task, confidently declaring to the other troopers that drugs are definitely located in the cargo area.
After Trooper Taylor reported to the other troopers that the
dog had identified the odor of contraband, they removed the lock
which secured the doors to the cargo area. A search of the cargo
4 area uncovered approximately 264 pounds of marijuana, various
scales, and other assorted materials. The troopers placed
Boisvert under arrest and gave him the Miranda warnings.
Troopers Weigel and Heim were then radioed and asked to stop the New Hampshire pickup truck, which by this time had
travelled about 90 miles further east. The truck was intercepted
and the operator, Donald Kekich, was placed under arrest. A
search of the pickup revealed approximately 64 pounds of
marijuana. Kekich agreed to cooperate with the officers and make
a controlled delivery of the marijuana to defendant Levesque in
Chichester, New Hampshire. When Levesque arrived in Chichester
to pick up the marijuana, law enforcement officers placed him
under arrest.
On December 1 0 , 1994, pursuant to a search warrant issued by
the Concord (New Hampshire) District Court, officers searched
Levesque's house, barn, and garage. The search uncovered a
quantity of marijuana, a tech 9 manual, a Glock 8mm magazine,
ammunition, and various other items. Officers then obtained
Kekich's consent to search a storage garage which he had rented
in Pembroke, New Hampshire. Kekich told the officers that the
5 garage contained, among other things, a Toyota van and a Jaguar
which, although titled in the name of Robin Boisvert, were
actually owned by defendant Levesque. A search of the Toyota van
resulted in the seizure of various firearms, ammunition,
marijuana, and a number of scales.
Both Levesque and Boisvert challenge the search of the U-
Haul van. They argue that Trooper Jimerson's questioning of
Boisvert after he had completed the traffic stop and computer
check for outstanding warrants exceeded the constitutionally
permissible scope of the stop, in violation of the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Levesque also
challenges the subsequent searches of the Dodge pickup truck, his
home, garage, and barn, and the Toyota van located in the storage
facility rented by Kekich. Levesque claims that these searches
were based upon evidence and statements unlawfully obtained as a
result of the stop and seizure of the U-Haul van. As such,
Levesque argues that this evidence is inadmissible "fruit of the
poisonous tree." On June 23 and July 7 , 1995, the court held an
evidentiary hearing on defendants' motions to suppress.
Discussion.
6 I. Levesque's Standing to Challenge the Searches. Levesque claims that, although he was not present for the search of the U-Haul, the Dodge pickup truck, or the storage facility, he has standing to challenge the constitutionality of those searches. Specifically, Levesque claims that he paid the $1330 rental fee for the U-Haul van and, by placing the furniture in the cargo area of the van, securing it with a lock, and retaining the only key, he established a possessory interest in the van and made clear his expectation of privacy with regard to its contents. Levesque also claims that he furnished the funds to purchase the Dodge pickup truck and, although he does not hold legal title to that vehicle, he claims to be the equitable owner. As such, he argues that he has standing to challenge its search.
The government has stipulated to the following facts: (i) On December 5 , 1994, Levesque provided Boisvert with the $1330 in cash for the rental of the U-Haul van; (ii) Levesque owned the furniture located in the cargo area of the U-Haul, he loaded those furnishing into the U-Haul, he placed the padlock on the cargo area doors and retained the only key; and (iii) Levesque provided Kekich with the funds to purchase the Dodge pickup truck and instructed Kekich to register it in his (Kekich's) name.
7 Levesque's standing to challenge the searches is a
threshhold issue. Unless he establishes his standing, the "bona
fides of the search and seizure are not put legitimately into
issue." United States v . Aguirre, 839 F.2d 8 5 4 , 856 (1st Cir.
1988). In Aguirre, supra, the court of appeals recited the
factors which are normally among those considered by district
court's in determining whether a defendant has standing to
challenge a search and seizure:
We have often catalogued the sort of factors which are pertinent to this threshold inquiry: ownership, possession, and/or control; historical use of the property searched or the thing seized; ability to regulate access; the totality of the surrounding circumstances; the existence or nonexistence of a subjective anticipation of privacy; and the objective reasonableness of such an expectancy under the facts of a given case.
Id. at 856-57.
For the reasons set forth below, however, the court need not
address whether Levesque has standing to challenge the searches
and seizures at issue, for, even assuming that he does have
standing, the challenged searches and seizures were valid and
conducted within constitutional limits.
8 II. The Search of the U-Haul Van.
In United States v . Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), the Supreme
Court discussed the Fourth Amendment's proscription against
unreasonable searches and seizures in the context of a Terry
stop.
The exception to the probable-cause requirement for limited seizures of the person recognized in Terry and its progeny rests on a balancing of the competing interests to determine the reasonableness of the type of seizure involved within the meaning of "the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures." We must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion. When the nature and extent of the detention are minimally intrusive of the individual's Fourth Amendment interests, the opposing law enforcement interests can support a seizure based on less than probable cause.
Id. at 703 (citations omitted). More recently, the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit articulated the analysis which this
court must undertake in determining the validity of a traffic
stop and subsequent nonconsensual search of a vehicle:
To evaluate the overall reasonableness of this type of stop, a "Terry stop", the reviewing court must perform a two step inquiry: "the court must first consider whether the officer's action was justified at its inception; and second, whether the action taken was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place."
9 United States v . Kimball, 25 F.3d 1 , 6 (1st Cir. 1994) (citations
omitted).
The uncontested evidence produced at the suppression hearing
demonstrates that Boisvert committed a traffic violation while
operating the U-Haul on Interstate 70 -- he failed to maintain
the vehicle in a single lane of traffic. See Kan. Stat. Ann. §8-
1522. 2 And, a traffic violation, regardless of its seriousness,
provides a law enforcement officer with justification for a
traffic stop. United States v . White, 42 F.3d 4 5 7 , 459 (8th Cir.
1994); Topp v . Wolkowski, 944 F.2d 4 5 , 48 (1st Cir. 1993). The
2 Boisvert argues that, when he was stopped by Trooper Jimerson for failing to maintain his vehicle in a single lane of travel, "that section of Kansas was encountering an ice storm and high winds." Supplement to the Accused's Original Motion to Suppress at 1 , ¶ 2 . Boisvert failed to produce any evidence in support of this assertion at the suppression hearing. Moreover, both Trooper Jimerson and Trooper Taylor testified credibly that the roads were dry, with some wet spots on the shoulder, and the winds were light (approximately 5 to 8 miles per hour). This testimony is supported by the video tape recording made of the traffic stop. Accordingly, the court finds that Boisvert's assertions regarding adverse weather conditions and their effect on his ability to maintain a single lane of travel are without merit. Moreover, there is simply no evidence to suggest that this was a pretextual stop, by which Trooper Jimerson might have sought to acquire information or evidence against Boisvert regarding some other crime.
10 Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the circuit in which
Kansas is located) has held:
A traffic stop is an investigative detention analogous to a Terry stop, in that, although probable cause is not required, the detaining officer must have an objectively reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or is occurring before stopping the automobile.
United States v . Soto, 988 F.2d 1548, 1554 (10th Cir. 1993).
Here, Trooper Jimerson plainly had an objectively reasonable
articulable suspicion that Boisvert had committed a traffic
violation. Accordingly, the first prong of this two part
analysis is satisfied: the trooper's action (stopping the U-Haul)
was justified at its inception.
The court must next consider whether the detention of the U- Haul and its subsequent exposure to a trained, drug sniffing canine were reasonable.3 "The predicate permitting seizures on
3 In United States v . Place, supra, the Supreme Court held that exposure of the defendant's luggage to a trained drug sniffing dog did not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A "canine sniff" by a well-trained narcotics detection dog, however, does not require opening the luggage. It does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, as does, for example, an officer's rummaging through the contents of
11 suspicion short of probable cause is that law enforcement
interests warrant a limited intrusion on the personal security of
the suspect. The test is whether those interests are
sufficiently `substantial.'" United States v . Place, 462 U.S. at
704 (citations omitted). Plainly, the government has a
substantial interest in preventing the flow of narcotics into
channels of distribution. Id. at 704-05. See also, United
States v . Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 5 4 4 , 561 (1980) (Powell, J.) ("The
public has a compelling interest in detecting those who would
traffic in deadly drugs for personal profit.").
At the time Trooper Jimerson called for the drug dog, he was
justifiably suspicious of Boisvert. To that point, he had
learned and/or observed that: (i) Boisvert had paid for the
rented van with $1,330 in cash; (ii) he professed not to have the
the luggage. Thus, the manner in which information is obtained through the investigative technique is much less intrusive than a typical search. Moreover, the sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item. Thus, despite the fact that the sniff tells the authorities something about the contents of the luggage, the information obtained is limited. This limited disclosure also ensures that the owner of the property is not subjected to the embarrassment and inconvenience entailed in less discriminate and more intrusive investigative methods. Id. at 707.
12 key to the locked cargo area; (iii) he was travelling alone in
the U-Haul, but claimed to be transporting a third party's
property; (iv) he appeared visibly nervous (heavy breathing and
trembling hands), to a greater degree than the ordinary motorist
in similar circumstances; (v) he possessed a paging device and
short-range C.B. "walkie talkie"; (vi) he lied about his prior
arrest on narcotics charges; (vii) his point of origin (Tucson,
Arizona) is located near the Mexican border and is known to law
enforcement officers as a source of controlled substances; and
(viii) he explained the close presence and his apparent tandem
travel with the New Hampshire pickup truck (which was equipped
with two C.B. antennae) as simply a coincidence.
Although when viewed in isolation each of these facts might
be entirely consistent with innocent interstate travel, when
viewed as a whole, particularly by a trained police officer, they
give rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion that Boisvert was
engaged in transporting contraband. Accordingly, Trooper
Jimerson was justified in detaining Boisvert's vehicle. See,
e.g., United States v . Withers, 972 F.2d 8 3 7 , 843 (7th Cir. 1992)
(defendant's arrival from a city known as a source of drugs, her
nervousness, her authorization to search her purse but not to
13 search her garment bag, and her admission regarding a prior
arrest for trafficking narcotics all gave officers a reasonable
suspicion to conduct an investigative stop); United States v .
Glover, 957 F.2d 1004, 1010 (2d Cir. 1992) ("In the case of
suspected narcotics trafficking, an officer's suspicion will be
reasonable i f , considering the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the stop, `the conduct would appear suspect to one
familiar with the practices of narcotics couriers, albeit the
pattern of behavior is innocuous to the untrained observer.'")
(citations omitted); United States v . Sterling, 909 F.2d 1078,
1084, 85 (7th Cir. 1990) (defendant's arrival from a city known
as a source of drugs, her nervousness, fact that she lied to
officers about details of her travel, and fit the "profile" of a
drug courier gave officers reasonable suspicion sufficient to
justify detention of her suitcase.).
The real issue presented here is whether the detention of
the U-Haul was sufficiently brief and, therefore, so minimally
intrusive of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights as to be
justified by the strong countervailing government interest in
drug interdiction. And, subsumed within that issue is whether
14 the officers acted diligently in attempting to confirm or deny
their suspicion that the U-Haul contained contraband.
Obviously, if an investigative stop continues indefinitely, at some point it can no longer be justified as an investigative stop. But our cases impose no rigid time limitation on Terry stops. While it is clear that "the brevity of the invasion of the individual's Fourth Amendment interests is an important factor in determining whether the seizure is so minimally intrusive as to be justifiable on reasonable suspicion," we have emphasized the need to consider the law enforcement purposes to be served by the stop as well as the time reasonably needed to effectuate those purposes. Much as a "bright line" rule would be desirable, in evaluating whether an investigative detention is unreasonable, common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria.
United States v . Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985) (citations
omitted). The Supreme Court has cautioned district courts not to
engage in overly creative speculation aimed at determining
whether the police might have employed faster or less inconvenient means to verify or dispel their suspicions.
In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, we consider it appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant. A court making this assessment should take care to consider whether the police are acting in a swiftly developing situation, and in such cases the court should not indulge in unrealistic second- guessing. A creative judge engaged in post hoc
15 evaluation of police conduct can almost always imagine some alternative means by which the objectives of the police might have been accomplished. But "[t]he fact that the protection of the public might, in the abstract, have been accomplished by `less intrusive' means does not, by itself, render the search unreasonable." The question is not simply whether some other alternative was available, but whether the police acted unreasonably in failing to recognize or to pursue it.
United States v . Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 686-87 (citations omitted).
Here, Trooper Jimerson requested that a drug dog be
dispatched to his location approximately 10 minutes into the
stop. Trooper Taylor and his drug dog arrived at the scene
approximately 55 minutes into the stop. In light of all of the
factors unique to this traffic stop, including its remote
location on Interstate 7 0 , a 55 minute delay in the arrival of
the drug dog unit was not unreasonable. Trooper Jimerson acted
diligently in attempting to resolve his suspicions regarding the
contents of the U-Haul. See, e.g., United States v . Bloomfield,
40 F.3d 9 1 0 , 917 (8th Cir. 1994) ("When police need the
assistance of a drug dog in roadside Terry stops, it will in
general take time to obtain one; local government police forces
and the state highway patrol cannot be expected to have drug dogs
immediately available to all officers in the field at all
times.") cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 L . Ed. 2d 859, 115 S .
16 C t . 1970 (1995); United States v . White, 42 F.3d 4 5 7 , 460 (8th
Cir. 1994) ("The wait of about one hour and twenty minutes
pending arrival of the drug dog was a reasonable period to detain
the truck. [The officer] acted diligently to obtain the dog, and
the delay was caused only by the remote location of the closest
available d o g . " ) ; United States v . Frost, 999 F.2d 7 3 7 , 742 (3rd
Cir.) (one hour delay of drug dog not unreasonable), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 L . Ed. 2d 4 7 2 , 114 S . C t . 573 (1993);
United States v . Glover, 957 F.2d 1004, 1013 (2d Cir. 1992) (30
minute delay while awaiting arrival of drug dog not
unreasonable).
In sum, Trooper Jimerson had reasonable suspicion justifying
detention of the U-Haul and the length of the detention was also
reasonable. Once the drug dog "alerted," indicating the presence
of contraband in the cargo area of the U-Haul, the troopers had
probable cause to believe the vehicle contained illegal drugs.
United States v . Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 159 (1st Cir. 1987). The
subsequent search was, therefore, justified by the "automobile
exception" to the search warrant requirement. Chambers v .
Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970); see also United States v . Ross 456
U.S. 7 9 8 , 809 (1982) ("the exception to the warrant requirement
17 established in Carroll -- the scope of which we consider in this
case -- applies only to searches of vehicles that are supported
by probable cause. In this class of cases, a search is not
unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of
a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been
obtained.").
III. The Search of the Dodge Pickup Truck.
At the suppression hearing, Trooper Weigel testified that on
December 8 , 1994, he received a radio transmission requesting
that he stop the Dodge pickup truck and arrest the driver.
Trooper Weigel stated that he subsequently stopped the truck and
arrested the driver, Donald Kekich, for his role in transporting
the contraband discovered in the U-Haul. He observed that the
pickup truck had been recently painted and detected the
pronounced odor of marijuana emanating from the rear of the
truck. He then removed the tail light from the truck and
discovered a package of marijuana. When he confronted Kekich
with this contraband, Kekich expressed a willingness to cooperate
with the officers in setting up a controlled delivery of the
marijuana to Levesque in New Hampshire.
18 The issue presented here is whether officer Weigel had
probable cause to arrest Kekich and, therefore, to search the
pickup truck for illegal drugs. It is well established that,
"[w]here law enforcement authorities are cooperating in an
investigation, as here, the knowledge of one is presumed shared
by all." Illinois v . Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771-72 n . 5 (1983)
(citing Whiteley v . Warden, 401 U.S. 5 6 0 , 568 (1971)). Here,
Trooper Weigel is deemed to have knowledge of the following
facts: Kekich's pickup truck was travelling in close proximity
to the U-Haul van, which contained a sizable quantity of
marijuana; the driver of the U-Haul professed to be travelling to
New Hampshire; the pickup truck bore New Hampshire license plates
and was registered to a resident of Concord, New Hampshire; when
the U-Haul was stopped for a traffic violation, the pickup truck
continued east, something which Trooper Jimerson testified was
unusual for vehicles travelling together; the operator of the U-
Haul possessed two short range, hand-held C.B. walkie talkies and
the pickup truck was equipped with dual C.B. antennae.
Armed with the foregoing knowledge, Trooper Weigel had
probable cause to stop the pickup truck and arrest Kekich. As
the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, probable cause is a
19 practical, nontechnical concept. "In dealing with probable
cause, . . . as the very name implies, we deal with
probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and
practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and
prudent men, not legal technicians, act." Illinois v . Gates, 462
U.S. 213, 231 (1983) (quoting United States v . Cortex, 449 U.S.
411, 418 (1981)). It was objectively reasonable for a law
enforcement officer with access to the knowledge imputed to
Trooper Weigel to conclude that it was more probable than not
that Kekich was involved in the unlawful interstate
transportation of a controlled substance. See, e.g., United
States v . Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023 (1st Cir. 1987) ("[T]he
constitutionality of a warrantless arrest `depends . . . upon
whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had
probable cause to make it -- whether at that moment the facts and
circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had
reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a
prudent [person] in believing that the [defendant] had committed
or was committing an offense.'") (quoting Beck v . Ohio, 379 U.S.
8 9 , 91 (1964).
20 Having arrested Kekich on probable cause and subsequently
detecting the unmistakable odor of marijuana coming from the rear
of the truck, Trooper Weigel could properly search the pickup
truck for controlled substances under the "automobile exception"
to the warrant requirement. United States v . Ross, 456 U.S. 798
(1982); Carroll v . United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). See
United States v . McCoy, 977 F.2d 706, 710 (1st Cir. 1992) ("Under
the `automobile exception,' the only essential predicate for a
valid warrantless search of a motor vehicle by law enforcement
officers is `probable cause to believe that the [vehicle]
contains contraband or other evidence of criminal activity.'"
(citation omitted)); United States v . Maguire, 918 F.2d 2 5 4 , 260-
61 (1st Cir. 1990) (generally discussing the scope and
application of the "automobile exception" to the warrant
requirement.), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 950 (1991).
Finally, because the searches of the U-Haul and the Dodge
pickup were constitutionally permissible, Levesque's argument
that the subsequent searches of his home, barn, garage, and
vehicles were "fruit of the poisonous tree" is unfounded.
Conclusion.
21 For the foregoing reasons, Boisvert's Motion to Suppress (document n o . 34) is denied.4 Even assuming that he has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the searches and seizures, Levesque's Motions to Suppress I through IV (documents nos. 36- 39) are denied.
4 Defendant Boisvert failed to appear at the continuation of the suppression hearing. No explanation for his absence was provided and the court concluded that he absented himself voluntarily and waived his right to be present. United States v . Dalli, 424 F.2d 4 5 , 48 (2nd Cir.) ("Although a defendant has a right to be present at a suppression hearing where testimony is to be taken, this right is not absolute and may be relinquished by acts or statements of the defendant which constitute a voluntary waiver."), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 821 (1970). See generally, C . Bello, Annotation, Right of Accused to Be Present at Suppression Hearing, 23 A.L.R.4th 955, §6a (collecting cases).
Accordingly, the hearing continued to conclusion in his absence and the court issued a warrant for his apprehension. Should Boisvert offer justification for his absence, the court will reconsider his motion in light of any additional evidence or argument he may wish to present that was not presented due to his absence.
22 SO ORDERED.
Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge July 1 1 , 1995 cc: Martin J. Bender, Esq. Paul J. Garrity, Esq. United States Marshal United States Attorney United States Probation