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 v. Barclay

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

January 25, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DONTRELL BARCLAY, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

          PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On August 18, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized on March 13, 2017 from himself, a vehicle, and a residence pursuant to a search warrant issued on March 13, 2017.

         The search warrant authorized the search of a residence on Syracuse Street in Detroit (target location), Defendant Barclay (target), a 2002 Ford Crown Victoria (target vehicle), and cell phones.

         The affidavit in support of the search warrant was signed by Officer Kristopher Richardson of the Westland Police Department (affiant), presently working in the Westland Police Department Special Investigations Unit (SIU) that investigates illegal narcotics.

         The search warrant's statement of probable cause, beginning with paragraph 5, referred to an interview of an individual (Confidential Informant, CI) that informed the affiant that

(1) He has been purchasing heroin and cocaine and crack cocaine from the Target Defendant for several months, to distribute them on the street
(2) The CI had a criminal past, and also made incriminating statements against himself.
(3) That, through the affiant's “interview techniques he was able to establish that the subject was reliable and credible.” Affidavit p.5. The facts secured through the affiant's interview techniques were that:
1. The informant (CI) provided the affiant with his contact number for the Target individual.
2. Using law enforcement and public information databases, the affiant obtained a picture of the Target which the CI identified as the target drug supplier.
3. The CI provided a detailed description of the house and vehicles that are used by the Target to distribute his illegal narcotics.

         Paragraph 6 stated that the affiant's SIU conducted surveillance of the Syracuse Street Target Location where they observed the Target Vehicle.

         It also stated that the affiant met with the CI to make a purchase from the Target. The CI was searched for drugs and money, with negative results. The CI made a call to the Target to set up a purchase of drugs from the Target; the Target directed the CI to a specific location. Shortly thereafter, surveillance Officers observed the Target exit the Target Location (residence), enter the passenger side of the Target Vehicle, and a female enter the driver's side, and drive to the predetermined “meet spot.” The CI had been provided with Westland prerecorded buy money. When the Target arrived at the “meet spot”, the CI made contact with the Target; they then separated from each other and the CI departed. The affiant met the pre-searched CI and obtained cocaine. The CI stated that he purchased the cocaine from the Target individual.

         The issue of whether the CI bought the cocaine from the Target individual, as set forth in the affidavit, or from the female in the car forms the basis 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.