16-4296 USA v. Lambus 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ------ 4 August Term, 2017 5 (Argued: February 20, 2018 Decided: July 25, 2018) 6 Docket No. 16-4296 7 _________________________________________________________ 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 9 Appellant, 10 - v. - 11 KAMEL LAMBUS, AKA Kamel Angevine, AKA K, AKA Kamel 12 Angenevine, STANLEY FULLER, AKA Wardy, AKA Webo, 13 Defendants-Appellees.* 14 _________________________________________________________ 15 Before: KEARSE and LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, and MEYER, District Judge**. * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform with the above. ** Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation. 1 Appeal by the United States from so much of two pretrial orders of the 2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Jack B. Weinstein, 3 Judge, as (1) granted motions by defendants Kamel Lambus and Stanley Fuller to 4 suppress evidence obtained pursuant to one of several court-authorized wiretaps, 5 and (2) granted a motion by Lambus to suppress location data generated by a GPS 6 tracking device attached to his ankle by his New York State parole officers. The 7 district court ruled that the wiretap applicant had knowingly withheld from and 8 misrepresented to the authorizing judge information that was required by 18 U.S.C. 9 ยง 2518(1)(e), and the court suppressed the evidence gained from that wiretap, citing 10 its inherent authority. See 221 F.Supp.3d 319 (2016). The court suppressed location 11 data generated by the GPS device, ruling that Lambus's Fourth Amendment 12 expectations of privacy were infringed on the ground that the device was used for a 13 two-year period, without a warrant, not for purposes of State parole supervision but 14 only for the collection of evidence that would permit the federal government to 15 prosecute Lambus for drug trafficking. See 251 F.Supp.3d 470 (2017). 16 On appeal, the government challenges the suppression of the wiretap 17 evidence, contending (a) that the district court clearly erred in finding that the 18 mistakes by the wiretap applicant were intentional rather than inadvertent, and (b) 2 1 that the court did not find the applicant's mistakes to have been material, and it erred 2 in failing to apply the test established by Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), under 3 which such evidence should not be suppressed unless the mistakes were material. 4 The government challenges the suppression of GPS data, contending principally that 5 (a) the GPS monitoring of Lambus was permissible because it was reasonably related 6 to his parole officers' duties; (b) in light of Lambus's acknowledgements of his parole 7 officers' authority to search his person and to attach a GPS tracker, evincing little 8 expectation of privacy, the use of the tracker was not unreasonable under the Fourth 9 Amendment; and (c) in any event, suppression should have been denied under the 10 good-faith doctrine of Davis v. United ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals