Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Virgil Larone Hiley

December 26, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VIRGIL LARONE HILEY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Consuelo B. Marshall United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND REQUEST FOR FRANKS HEARING

The matter before the Court, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall presiding, is Defendant Virgil Larone Hiley's Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Suppress and Request for Franks Hearing. [Docket No. 127.]

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 29, 2010, Defendant Virgil Larone Hiley ("Mr. Hiley"), through his previous counsel, filed a motion to suppress evidence seized upon the search of room 224 of the Knights Inn Motel. (Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Suppress and Request for Franks Hearing ("Mot. Recons.") at 3:18-3:19.) On April 28, 2010, the motion to suppress was denied for lack of standing. (Mot. Recons. at 4:12.) Mr. Hiley subsequently went to trial, resulting in a hung jury with the count ten for acquittal and two for guilt. (Id. at 3:14-3:15.) Thereafter, the Court declared a mistrial. (Id. at 3:15.) Mr. Hiley now moves this Court to reconsider its prior ruling on his motion to suppress the evidence seized as the result of the search of room 224 of the Knights Inn Motel. (Id. at 3:5-3:7.)

Specifically, Mr. Hiley argues that: (1) additional and new information was uncovered from the testimony at trial demonstrating that Officer Gerald Beall ("Officer Beall") made affirmative false statements in the affidavit in support of the search warrant, and (2) Officer Beall's testimony at trial revealed that he had omitted material facts from the affidavit in support of the search warrant which would have affected the determination that probable cause existed to issue the warrant. (Id. at 2:7-3:12.)

I.FALSE STATEMENTS

Mr. Hiley contends that Officer Beall testified at trial about the surveillance at the Knights Inn Motel, the surveillance of Mr. Hiley, the nature of the search, and securing the search warrant to search room 224. (Id. at 4:16-4:20.) Officer Beall also testified about the "tip" that he received from his "confidential reliable informant" which formed the basis for the investigation of Mr. Hiley at the Knights Inn Motel. (Id. at 4:19-4:21.) Mr. Hiley further contends, however, that there were several inconsistencies between the testimony of Officer Beall and other witnesses, and Officer Beall's sworn affidavit. (Id. at 4:21-4:23.) Specifically, Mr. Hiley contends that Officer Beall testified that only two-hundred and ten dollars ($210) in U.S. currency had been found on Mr. Hiley during the traffic stop, while his sworn affidavit stated that Mr. Hiley had been found with four-hundred and fifty dollars ($450) "in denominations consistent with street level narcotics sales." (Id. at 4:26-5:2.)

Mr. Hiley further contends that the "probable cause" section of Officer Beall's affidavit states that, prior to August 1, 2008, Officer Beall had received information from "numerous confidential reliable informants" that Mr. Hiley was operating under the name "Splurge" and was selling cocaine base in the downtown area of the City of San Bernardino. (Id. at 5:3-5:5.) Officer Beall's affidavit also states that the informants told him that Mr. Hiley was driving a black "possibly Ford, pick-up truck." (Id. at 5:7-5:8.) Mr. Hiley contends that, during trial, Officer Beall conceded that he had no independent records showing that a black Ford pick-up truck was registered to Mr. Hiley before August 1, 2008, and that, according to the DMV records admitted at trial, Mr. Hiley did not acquire the black Ford truck until mid-July 2008. (Id. at 5:8-5:12.) Mr. Hiley further contends that Officer Beall testified that he had confirmed Mr. Hiley's use of the name "Splurge" through his State of California Parole information, while the affidavit failed to include Mr. Hiley's "parole address," the Riverside, California, address where he resided while on parole. (Id. at 5:14-5:17.) Mr. Hiley contends that Officer Beall's failure to include Mr. Hiley's "parole address" is inconsistent with the statement that Officer Beall made in his sworn affidavit -- that he secured a pass key for room 224 of the Knights Inn Motel from the motel manager "to secure the location for a parole search." (Id. at 5:14-5:19.)

II.MATERIAL OMISSIONS

Mr. Hiley contends that Officer Beall failed to state: (1) that Mr. Hiley was personally searched twice (by Officers Gonzalez and Bennett), (2) that Mr. Hiley was detained for 45 minutes in handcuffs in a patrol car while the officers conducted a thorough search of the truck, (3) that no evidence of any drug trafficking or other crimes was uncovered during the search, (4) that no motel room key was found on Mr. Hiley or in the truck, and (5) that there was no evidence found during the search tying Mr. Hiley to room 224 of the Knights Inn Motel. (Id. at 5:22-6:2.)

Mr. Hiley further contends that Officer Beall's affidavit indicated that the motel "manager" at the Knights Inn Motel positively identified Mr. Hiley from a photograph as the person who rented room 224 under the name "Bobby Taylor." (Id. at 6:3-6:6.) However, Mr. Hiley contends that Officer Beall testified at trial that the Rental Agreement in question showed that room 224 was rented to a "Bobbie Taylor," who had given a California Driver's License as identification. (Id. at 6:6-6:10.) Moreover, the only employee from the Knights Inn Motel who testified at trial was Chetan Patel. (Id. at 6:14-6:17.) Mr. Patel testified that he was not the employee who registered the guest for room 224, and that he had not prepared the Rental Agreement for "Bobbie Taylor." (Id.)

Mr. Hiley therefore concludes that Officer Beall's affirmative false statements and material omissions undermined the probable cause determination, such that the search warrant for room 224 of the Knights Inn Motel would not have been issued had the true facts been stated and no omissions made. (Id. at 6:19-6:21.)

STANDARD OF LAW

I.MOTION FOR ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.