Free Reply to Response - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr-00143-JJF Document 22 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2 _
" ,4¢¢; U.S. Department of Justice
.
g · United States Attorney ’s Ojice
District of Delaware
l l 1007 Orange Street, Suite 700
eo. an 2046 (302) 573»6277
Z _ Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2046 FAXG02) 573-6220
Mach 17,- 2008
l Honorable Joseph J. F arnan, Jr.
' United States District Court ‘
J. Caleb Boggs_Federal Building
. . · 844 King Street · ·
_. Wilmington, DE 19801
_ ` ‘ Su lemental Memorandum
- Re: United States v. Charles Warren, y
- U Criminal Action N0. 07-143-JJF l _
. Dear Judge Farnan: ‘ . U
l On February 6, 2008, Your Honor heard a suppression hearing in the matter of United States
_‘ . v. Charles Warren. At the conclusion of the hearing, Your Honor directed the parties to set a
A schedule to provide the Court with Supporting Briefs. The Government and the defendant were
‘ required to submit their Initial Briefs by March 7, 2008; the Government was to submit any reply .'
to the defendant’s response by March 17, 2008. As a result of the agreement, the Government i
respectfully submits the following Supplemental Memorandum: i
l l. The Defendant has Failed to Show that His Due Process Ri ts were Violated. in
_ The Government submit that the defendant has failed to show that any due process rights i
‘ ‘ were violated. The defendant cites T rombetta in support of his position. As cited in the i
Government’s Post-Hearing Response, it is clear that a defendant must show the, "evidence must ,
- p both possess an exculpatoiy value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed and be of >
· ‘ such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably
available means." California v. T rombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984).
_ In the case before the bar, there is no evidence that had apparent exculpatoiy value. On page
_ ‘ _ _ _ six ofthe defendant’s brief he states, "l\/lr. Warren submits that on the night of his arrest, his bicycle ‘
· was in full compliance with Delaware’s Motor Vehicle Code..." There is, however, no evidence to l
l support this claim. The only evidence presented is the testimony of Wilmington Police Officers ‘ ’
Steele and Murphy. Both Officers testified that the defendant was operating a bicycle without an
operational headlight as required by Delaware law.
l l Furthermore, the defendant cites to Arizona v. Youngblood and specifically points out that
the Court "stressed the importance for constitutional purposes of good or bad faith on the part ofthe

Case 1 :07-cr-00143-JJF Document 22 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2 _
I Government when the claim is based on loss of evidence attributable to the govermnent.
E Youngblood, 448 U.S. 5 l . Again, the defendant’s argument fails. The testimony nom Officer Steele
’ was that the defendant was taken to Wilmington Hospital as a precaution because he was tasered. _
I (T- 1 3). The Officers went back to the scene, after the trip to the hospital, to recover the bicycle. (T-
14). The defendant has shown no bad faith on the part of the officers.
T It is also worth noting that T rombetta refers to "destroyed evidence" and Youngblood refers
“loss of evidence attributable to the government? In both of those situations, the Court is referring ‘
1 to affirmative action on the pan; of the Government. In this case, the Police Officers took no
. affirmative action to destroy or lose the bicycle; in fact, the Officers did the opposite and attempted
l to recover the bicycle in question. I
U fl. The Officers had Reasonable Susgicion and Probable Cause to Stop the Defendant.
I The defendant’ s second argument is that the Officers lacked reasonable suspicion or probable
_ t cause to stop the defendant. In his brief on page eight, the defendant states, Warren’s position
j I is that his bicycle was fully compliant and the Government has offered no evidence to the contrary."
, _ Aside from the fact that the defendant has failed to present any evidence to support his position, the
. I assertion is in opposition to all ofthe facts before the Court. Both Officer Steele and Officer Murphy
. testified that there was no light on the bicycle. (T. 8, 18, 26, 28). Officer Steele testified that the
defendant’s acts violated the Delaware Motor Vehicle Code.
I . The defendant then cites to United States v. Delfin—Coy‘ina writing, "[A]n officer’s Fourth
. Amendment burden of production is (1) to identify the ordinance or statute that he believed had been
violated and (2) provide specific articulable facts that would support an objective detennination of
I whether any officer could have possessed reasonable suspicion of the alleged infraction. As long
· · as both prongs are met, an officer’s subjective understanding of the law at issue would not be
_ relevant to the court’s determination. United States v. DeQin—Coij‘ina, 464 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2006).
_ ( In the case before the Court, the Officer actually identified two infractions, the forementioned
bicycle headlight violation, as well as a resisting arrest charge. The Officer testified to the violation
and gave extensive recitation of the facts that led to the defendant’s arrest.
The evidence seized by the Wilmington Police should not be suppressed. The defendant has
failed to meet his burden necessary to show that the Officers acted in bad faith. The evidence also I
_ · shows that the Officers possessed both reasonable suspicion, as well as probable cause, to stop and i
. arrest the defendant. The Govemment respectfully requests the Court deny the defendant’s Motion. I
I I· _ ` Respectfully submitted, (
·I COLM F. CONNOLLY i
I . _ United States Attorne U l
( q BY: ·•_ glam'! . (
· _ awn E. Martyniak (
_ Special Assistant United { · ttomey
. · - cc; Eleni Kousoulis, Esquire (By CM/ECP) I I

Case 1:07-cr-00143-JJF

Document 22

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cr-00143-JJF

Document 22

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 2 of 2