United States District Court, District of Columbia
Debra L. Long-Doyle, Steven B. Wasserman, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
David Walker Bos, Federal Public Defender for D.C., Joanne Roney Hepworth, Hepworth & Pendry, Joseph Roll Conte, Law Offices of J.R. Conte, P.L.L.C., Rudolph Acree, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.
After the trial commenced, including over seven days of testimony, Defendant Edwards again moved to suppress the wiretap at issue in this case on November 7, 2012. The Defendant's  Pro Se Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained From Interception of Wire Communication in Light of New Evidence (" Defendant's Motion" ) represents the Defendant's second pro se motion, and fourth motion overall on this subject. As with the Defendant's prior motions, the Defendant fails establish any legal basis for suppressing the wiretap. Therefore, for the reasons stated below, the Defendant's motion is DENIED.
The Court exhaustively outlined the factual and procedural background of this in its prior opinions, which the Court incorporates in full herein. See generally 7/26/12 Mem. Opin., 889 F.Supp.2d 1, ECF No. ; 9/16/12 Mem. Opin., ECF No. ; 10/23/12 Mem. Opin., ECF No. . Briefly, Defendant Gezo Edwards is charged by superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, and one count of carrying a firearm during and in relation to or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. Superseding Indictment, ECF No. , at 2-3, 6. Throughout the course of its investigation, the Government obtained wiretaps on three cellular telephones associated with Defendant William Bowman. The Defendant's motion focuses on the affidavits filed in support of the wiretap authorization on one of those cellular telephones— " TT2." The Government obtained the relevant authorizations for TT2 on January 13, February 11, March 11, and April 8, 2011. 7/26/12 Mem. Opin., 889 F.Supp.2d at 5-7. The affidavit filed in support of the applications for wire interceptions of TT2, signed by FBI Special Agent Timothy S. Pak, did not disclose Defendant Edwards as a possible target of the interception until the April 8, 2011 application. Id. at 6-7.
The Government first obtained a wiretap authorization for TT3 on March 19, 2011, and Defendant Edwards was disclosed as a possible target of the TT3 interception in the supporting affidavit. Id. at 6-7. Agent Pak's affidavit indicated that pen register information obtained from TT3 reflected 939 attempted and completed calls between Defendant Edwards and TT3 between January 27, 2010 and March 11, 2011.
The orders authorizing the wiretaps on TT2 and TT3 permitted the Government to " intercept wire communications to and from the [target telephones], including any background conversation intercepted in the vicinity of the [the target telephone] while the telephone is off the hook or otherwise in use. " Gov't Ex. A (1/13/11 Order re TT2), ECF No. [290-1], at 3; accord Gov't Ex. B (2/14/11 Order re TT2), ECF No. [290-2] at 4; Gov't Ex. C (3/11/11 Order re TT2), ECF No. [290-3], at 4; Gov't Ex. D (4/8/11 Order re TT2), ECF No. [290-4], at 5; Gov't Ex. E (3/19/11 Order re TT3), ECF No. [290-5].
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., provides that a district court may authorize an application for interception of certain wire, oral, and/or electronic communications. 18 U.S.C. § 2518. Defendant Edwards, as an " aggrieved person," see 18 U.S.C. § 2510(11), once again moves to suppress the contents of the interceptions on the basis that the communications were " unlawfully intercepted." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a). Section 2518(1) sets forth the requirements for applications seeking Title III authorizations, and provides that applications must include, among other information:
[A] full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify his belief that an order should be issued, including ... (iv) the identity of the person, if known,
committing the offense and whose communications are to ...