St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog
Federal law enforcement agencies often conduct searches based on complex, ongoing criminal investigations. When those investigations involve serious allegations like stalking, attempted murder, or drug and firearm offenses, the legal justifications for search warrants are often contested in court. A recent Florida decision demonstrates how federal courts evaluate motions to suppress evidence, particularly when the probable cause supporting a warrant is challenged. If you are charged with a federal offense, it is important to understand what evidence the prosecution may use against you, and you should talk to a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.
Case Setting
It is reported that federal law enforcement began investigating a series of incidents between 2019 and 2023, allegedly targeting two victims. The incidents included attempted poisoning, two vehicle arsons, a hit-and-run, and the mailing of a threatening letter. It is alleged that these acts were part of an orchestrated effort by one victim’s estranged spouse to harass and intimidate her. In connection with the investigation, four individuals were charged for their alleged participation in this long-running plot.
It is alleged that on June 23, 2024, one of the victims was confronted in her driveway by an unidentified man who pointed a silver pistol at someone emerging from her home before fleeing in a black SUV. Surveillance footage allegedly captured a white Tesla—registered to the defendant, driving in proximity to the SUV both before and after the incident. It is reported that the investigation linked the defendant to the white Tesla, which had also been observed parked next to another vehicle registered to him at his residence. Based on these observations and other circumstantial evidence, federal agents obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s home and person on June 24, 2024.
It is further reported that during the execution of the search warrant, agents recovered a silver 9mm pistol, a rifle, a loaded Glock, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and several bags containing what was later determined to be cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. Allegedly, the defendant was charged in a superseding indictment with possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from the search and raised five objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Grounds for Suppressing Evidence in Federal Criminal Cases
On review, the court evaluated the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search, along with five objections he raised to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court conducted a de novo review where required, focusing primarily on the sufficiency of the probable cause and the legal standards governing suppression under the Fourth Amendment.
First, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction or that the federal investigation was unrelated to the warrant. The court noted that the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant laid out a coherent narrative linking the June 2024 assault to an ongoing murder-for-hire and stalking plot. Under Illinois v. Gates, probable cause requires only a “fair probability” that evidence of a crime will be found, and the court found that standard satisfied.
Second, the court addressed the defendant’s claims about allegedly misleading descriptions of surveillance footage. The defendant asserted that the white Tesla and Dodge Ram were only in proximity for 15 seconds, contradicting the implication of coordinated movement. However, the court found that the defendant failed to submit the footage or adequately challenge the affiant’s interpretation. Courts afford considerable deference to the issuing magistrate’s interpretation of the facts, particularly when supported by circumstantial evidence.
Third, the court upheld the finding of a sufficient nexus between the defendant’s home and the criminal activity. The Tesla was linked to the home by registration, and another vehicle connected to the investigation was observed in the defendant’s driveway. The court emphasized that evidence of instrumentalities of crime—including firearms, electronic devices, and clothing—was likely to be found at the residence.
Fourth, the court ruled that the defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing. Under Franks v. Delaware, a hearing is required only if the defendant shows that the affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods essential to the finding of probable cause. The defendant claimed the affiant omitted the date of a key photograph, but the court held that even with the omitted date, probable cause remained intact. The date’s omission did not rise to the level of intentional or material deception.
Finally, the court declined to reach the applicability of the good faith exception under United States v. Leon because it had already determined that the warrant was supported by probable cause.
Ultimately, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the motion to suppress, allowing the evidence seized during the search to be used in the prosecution.
Consult an Experienced St. Petersburg Criminal Defense Attorney Today
When federal authorities initiate an investigation, defendants must be prepared to challenge the legality of government actions at every stage. If you are facing serious federal charges or under investigation, you need experienced counsel with deep knowledge of constitutional law and criminal procedure. The skilled St. Petersburg criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are committed to defending your rights with diligence and precision. Contact our office at 727-289-0222 or complete our online form to schedule a consultation today.