IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 1:11-cr-402-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. JORGE PETER CORNELL ) ) ) ) ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE TAKEN IN SEARCHES AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

NOW COMES Defendant Jorge Cornell by and through undersigned counsel pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 18 U.S.C. 3501, moves this Honorable Court for an order suppressing any and all evidence seized by law enforcement as a result of the following searches: 1. Search of a residence at 2809 Keeler Street, Greensboro, North Carolina on or

about June 26, 2007. 2. Search of a vehicle at a warrantless traffic stop on or about April 24, 2010, said

vehicle being driven by co-defendants Wesley Williams and Richard Robinson and rented by Defendant Jorge Cornell. Evidence was seized on each of these occasions in violation of Defendant Cornells rights secured by the 4th and 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Physical evidence at issue includes a firearm, various controlled substances and various documents were seized as a result of an unlawful search. In support of this motion Defendant Cornell shows unto the Court the following: 1. Defendant Jorge Cornell is charged in a three count indictment with conspiracy to

engage in racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962, commission of a crime of violence in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise and use of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924.

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7-8iled+</-</&->age&of7

2.

On or about June 26, 2007, Greensboro Police officers working with the Safe

Streets Task Force, which was instrumental in the current federal prosecution, obtained a search warrant from North Carolina Magistrate William for a premises occupied by the Defendant Cornell and others located at 2809 Keeler Street, Greensboro, North Carolina. A copy of search warrant and affidavit are attached as Exhibit A hereto.1 The affidavit accompanying the search warrant application by Officer Lowes attempted to set forth facts to establish probable cause. The facts alleged, however, failed to establish probable cause and in addition the items authorized to be searched for and seized in the search warrant application greatly exceeded the appropriate scope established by the search warrant affidavit. 3. On April 24, 2010 task force officers involved in this case made a traffic stop of a

vehicle rented by the Defendant Jorge Cornell and operated by Defendants Wesley Williams and Richard Robinson for allegedly failing to stop at a stop sign. Upon information and belief, there was no basis for the traffic stop During the course of a warrantless search of a vehicle pursuant to that traffic stop, police seized certain items including a shotgun, rifle and ammunition on the grounds that the weapons were concealed. This evidence was seized in violation of the Defendants rights secured by the 4th and 5th Amendments to the United States Constitution. ARGUMENT The Fourth Amendment provides individuals with the right to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. United States Constitution Amendment Four. To challenge the search successfully under the 4th Amendment, the defendant must have This affidavit is a public record that was provided during discovery in this case. The U.S. Attorneys office has declined to relax its discovery policy to permit release of discovery documents. As a consequence, the document is filed as sealed Exhibit A to this Motion.
1

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7-8iled+</-</&->age-of7

standing, that is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched. Brackets v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978). Ownership of a vehicle is not determinative of standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104-106 (1980); United States v. Ramapuram, 632 F. 2d 1149, 1155 (4th Cir. 1980). A warrant must specify the places to be searched and things to be seized with sufficient particularity that the officer with the warrant can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended. Steele v. United States, 467 U.S. 498, 503 (1925). See also Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 14885 (1985) (describing the history, purpose and particularity requirement). Here Defendant Cornell has standing because he was a resident of 2809 Keeler Street, the residence searched on June 27, 2007, and was the renter of the van stopped by police on April 24, 2010. The affidavit in support of the search warrant of the 2809 Keeler Street is patently insufficient to establish probable cause Even a cursory review of the warrant attached as Exhibit A hereto reveals that it contains no reliable information to establish probable cause. For example: a. The affiant stated the following: a confidential source [said] that they have witnessed persons from 2809 Keeler St partaking in drug activity outside of their business. The affidavit provides no information about the reliability of this source. It does not identify these persons. The affidavit provides no link between the residence and the drug activity; since Keeler street is a residence and the affidavit indicates that the drug activity occurred outside the confidential sources business there is no explanation of why there is a connection to residence. United States v. Lalor, 996 F.2d 1578 (4th Cir. 1993).In addition, there is no information about the temporal relationship of the receipt of the information to the date on

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7-8iled+</-</&->ageAof7

which the warrant was requested. Time is a crucial element of probable cause. United States v. McCall, 740 F2d 1331, 1335-36 (4th Cir. 1984). b. The affidavit goes on to state that a trash pull was conducted at the residence. The affidavit is silent as to when this trash pull occurred. In addition, police are not authorized to search trash from a residence without a search warrant. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988); United States v. Tate, 524 F3d 449 (4th Cir. 2008). The stop and search of the van was a warrantless search. It is well settled that a search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable unless a valid exception to the warrant requirement exists. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973). In this case the validity of the initial stop of the vehicle was doubtful. The incident reports of the officer claimed that the traffic stop was initiated for failure of the vehicle to stop at a stop sign. See Incident Report attached at Sealed Exhibit B hereto. In addition, the weapons that were seized as concealed weapons were found in plain view by the police following the traffic stop whereas the arresting officers claimed that the facts that the weapons were concealed was the basis for seizing the weapons in this case. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Jorge Cornell, respectfully requests the Court to enter an order suppressing any evidence seized as a result of the above unlawful searches.

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7-8iled+</-</&->age,of7

This the 27th day of July, 2012. Law Office of Michael W. Patrick By: /s/ Michael W. Patrick Michael W. Patrick NC Bar #7956 312 West Franklin Street P.O. Box 16848 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (919) 960-5848 (telephone) (919) 869-1348 (facsimile) Email: mpatrick@ncproductslaw.com Attorney for Defendant Jorge Cornell

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7-8iled+</-</&->ageBof7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 27th day of July, 2012 I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court using the CM/ECF system which will provide a copy of the motion to counsel of record. /s/ Michael W. Patrick Attorney for Defendant Jorge Cornell

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7-8iled+</-</&->age7of7