Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Alexandre

United States District Court, D. Maine

April 10, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID ALEXANDRE & KEVIN WALLACE, Defendants.

          ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

          George Z. Singal, United States District Judge.

         Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Suppress & Request for a Franks Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 57). Additionally, Defendants filed a Motion to Seal (ECF No. 58), which seeks the permanent sealing of six exhibits that Defendants submit in connection with their Motion to Suppress. As explained below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal and DENIES the Motion to Suppress and the Request for a Hearing.

         I. MOTION TO SEAL

         Counsel for Defendant Alexandre filed a motion to seal the exhibits supporting the pending Motion to Suppress, indicating a request from the Government that only the facts laid out in Defendant's Motion papers be publicly disclosed at this time. The Court hereby GRANTS WITHOUT OBJECTION the Motion to SEAL but orders that the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 58) itself be unsealed.

         The exhibits provided to the Court as sealed attachments consist of: (1) the twelve-page search warrant application (Def. Ex. A); (2) a one-page report from Trooper Adam Schmidt regarding a January 9, 2018 debriefing of a confidential source (Def. Ex. B), (3) a two-page memorandum of interview detailing an interview conducted by U.S. Postal Inspector T.I. DuMond on February 21, 2018 (Def. Ex. C), (4) a one-page police report from Trooper Schmidt regarding a February 13, 2018 traffic stop (Def. Ex. D), (5) three-pages of notes from a February 14, 2018 debriefing of an informant (Def. Ex. E), and (6) a one-page report by Trooper William Pusey involving a January 7, 2018 well-being check that Pusey and Schmidt conducted at 38 Beech Street, Lyman, Maine (Def. Ex. F).

         Having reviewed all of these exhibits as well as the related briefs, the Court concludes that it is possible for counsel to produce redacted versions of these six exhibits and thereby allow for some public review of the evidence the Court has relied on in deciding Defendants' Motion to Suppress. Therefore, counsel shall file proposed redacted versions of Defendants' Exhibits A-F exhibits to the Clerk's Office in paper no later than April 26, 2019.

         II. MOTION TO SUPPRESS

         A. Background

         Defendants David Alexandre and Kevin Wallace are currently named in a six-count Indictment (ECF No. 26). The Indictment alleges that on or about February 28, 2018, Alexandre and Wallace each possessed methamphetamine with intent to distribute (Counts I & II), possessed a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking (Count III & IV), and possessed a firearm while being an unlawful drug user (Counts V & VI).

         On February 28, 2018, Maine State Police Trooper David Coflesky applied for a search warrant to search 38 Beech Street, Lyman, Maine (“the Target Residence”), as well as three specific vehicles located at the Target Residence. Trooper Coflesky supported his request for a search warrant with an affidavit containing sixty-eight numbered paragraphs. (See Def. Ex. A.) The affidavit recited law enforcement activity involving the Target Residence, which is located in the Oakwood Mobile Home Community, between December 2017 and February 23, 2018.

         As a result of all of those activities, Trooper Coflesky indicated his belief that the occupants of the Target Residence were engaged in drug trafficking, particularly the distribution of crystal methamphetamine.

         A Maine District Court Judge issued the warrant. Upon searching the Target Residence, the police discovered methamphetamine and firearms, which form the basis of the pending Indictment.

         B. Discussion

         Defendants contend that the Court should grant a Franks hearing and ultimately suppress the seized methamphetamine and firearms because: (1) Coflesky's affidavit contained false information in paragraphs 15, 16, 34, 36 & 37; and (2) without that information, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.