U.S. v. Hill

In prosecution on bank robbery and money laundering charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his arrest, as well as dye-stained money found on defendant at casino under circumstances where casino attendant observed defendant feeding dye-stained money into slot machine and then cashing out machine with vouchers without having played any games. Record showed that: (1) part-time security officer at casino was actual lieutenant at local police dept.; (2) information that casino attendant told lieutenant about defendant’s conduct at slot machine permitted lieutenant to stop defendant and ask him two questions about source of his money, especially where lieutenant’s past experience indicated that banks used red-dye packs to mark stolen money; and (3) lieutenant had probable cause to arrest defendant where lieutenant also observed defendant holding stack of red-dyed currency that had been wrapped in bank bands and where defendant gave unlikely story that he had found money at location near where he had changed his tire. Dist. Ct. also did not err in admitting expert testimony regarding historical cell-phone site analysis that govt. used to place defendant relatively near site of bank robbery, where expert set forth advantages and limitations of such analysis for jury’s consideration.