United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Z. Singal United States District Judge.
the Court is Defendant Joshua Kaufman's Motion to
Suppress (ECF No. 35). For reasons briefly explained herein,
the Motion is DENIED.
is currently charged in a three-count indictment for his role
in an alleged conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and
cocaine. Initially, Kaufman was arrested on February 21,
2018, based on a criminal complaint that charged him with
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Kaufman
now seeks suppression of all evidence seized as a result of
two warrants: (1) a February 21, 2018 warrant to search a
silver 2016 Nissan Sentra with New York Registration HH3592
(D. Me Docket # 2:18-mj-42-JHR) and (2) a March 9, 2018
warrant for phone records from Verizon Wireless for numbers
(828) 260-5933 & (828) 260-4009 (D. Me. Docket #
2:18-mj-98-JHR). He argues that there was insufficient
probable cause for these two warrants to issue or for
officers to rely on the warrants in good faith.
reviewed and assessed the information provided in “the
four corners of the affidavit supporting [each] warrant
application, ” the Court concludes Defendant's
arguments are simply without merit. United States v.
Vigeant, 176 F.3d 565, 569 (1st Cir. 1999). Both warrant
applications relied on an earlier warrant for an express mail
package. Having conducted the search of the package
in accordance with that warrant, law enforcement had
recovered suspected methamphetamine and cocaine from the
target package. As a result, Postal Inspector Dumond had
verified that the confidential informant, who had alerted law
enforcement to this to-be-delivered package, was providing
timely and credible information regarding the distribution of
methamphetamine. (See Gov't Ex. 1 (ECF No.
64-1), PageID #s 124-26.)
same confidential informant reported that Kaufman operated
the target vehicle in furtherance of his drug trafficking.
Additionally, law enforcement had seen Kaufman drive the
target vehicle after leaving the apartment where the package
was to be delivered. This surveillance of the delivery
address for the target package, combined with “common
sense” and “normal inferences, ” provided
an adequate nexus between Kaufman's use of the vehicle
and Kaufman's suspected drug trafficking. United
States v. Bain, 874 F.3d 1, 23 (1st Cir. 2017),
cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 1593 (2018) (“When it
comes to nexus, common sense says that a connection with the
search site can be deduced from the type of crime, the nature
of the items sought, plus normal inferences as to where a
criminal would hide evidence of his crime.”) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
told, Inspector Dumond's knowledge and experience, along
with the surveillance and the credible information from the
confidential informant, provided probable cause to believe
additional evidence of drug trafficking would be found upon a
search of this vehicle. (See Gov't Ex. 2 (ECF
No. 64-2), PageID #s 130 & 132.) Similarly, Inspector
Dumond's training and experience, combined with the phone
numbers provided by the same confidential informant as well
as the surveillance of Kaufman disposing of a cell phone that
was never recovered, provided probable cause that a search of
the requested phone records would provide further evidence of
drug trafficking. (See Gov't Ex. 3 (ECF No.
64-3), PageID #s 147-48.) In short, the Court concludes there
was sufficient probable cause contained in the supporting
affidavits for issuance of the March 9, 2018 warrant, as well
as the vehicle warrant. See United States v. Feliz,
182 F.3d 82, 86 (1st Cir. 1999).
incorporating the Court's assessment of the probable
cause for both challenged warrants, the Court readily
concludes that the searches conducted pursuant to these two
warrants fall within the good faith exception. See
Bain, 874 F.3d at 21 (explaining Leon's
good faith exception). Defendant's suggestion that both
warrants were so facially deficient that no objectively
reasonable officer could rely on them is meritless. Having
evaluated the totality of the attendant circumstances, the
Court finds the executing officers acted in objective good
faith when they relied on the warrants to search
Kaufman's vehicle and obtain the phone
records. See United States v. Levin, 874
F.3d 316, 321-23 (1st Cir. 2017).
result, there are no grounds to suppress evidence obtained
via the two challenged warrants and the Court therefore
DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 35).
 This February 21, 2018 package warrant
issued in D. Me Docket # 18-mj-40-JHR is not the subject of
any motion to suppress.
 Having concluded that Defendant's
Motion to Suppress is subject to denial on this alternative
basis, the Court declines the Government's invitation to
additionally find that the vehicle exception to the Fourth
Amendment's warrant requirement would have allowed a
search of the vehicle in question without a ...