Criminal Law

In prosecution on various drug-related offenses, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress post-arrest statements taken at police station under circumstances where police played audiotapes implicating defendant in charged offenses prior to giving defendant his Miranda warnings. Ct. rejected defendant's arguments that playing instant audiotapes rendered his subsequent waiver of Miranda rights involuntary since: (1) playing of tapes implicating defendant in crimes did not constitute interrogation; and (2) defendant made no statement in response to tapes prior to receiving and waiving his Miranda rights. Ct. similarly found that police tactic of requiring defendant to listen to incriminatory audiotapes did not violate Siebert, 542 US 600, since defendant was interrogated only after he had received Miranda warnings and made no incriminatory statement until after he had signed Miranda waiver.

In prosecution on charge of production of child pornography under 18 USC section 2251(a), Ct. of Appeals rejected defendant's claim that section 2251(a) was unconstitutional because it did not require that govt. prove that defendant was aware of victim's age at time of pornography's production, and it did not allow defendant to assert mistake-of-age defense. Moreover, Dist. Ct. properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on alleged violation of federal govt.'s internal Petite policy that generally precluded successive state and federal prosecutions for same crime, after court found that, although state had previously prosecuted defendant for essentially same child pornography offense, Petite policy did not create substantive right that could be enforced by defendant.

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress crack seized from defendant at police station after he was passenger in vehicle that was stopped by police, and after police had executed search warrant on home of driver of vehicle and discovered marijuana in driver’s dining room. Defendant’s detention both at place where vehicle was stopped and at driver’s home to which defendant had been transported by police was proper under Terry, even though police did not discover crack hidden on defendant during initial pat-down at scene of traffic stop, where: (1) police had recently observed defendant engaging in drug activity at driver’s home; and (2) once driver told police at traffic stop that there was marijuana in her dining room, police had probable cause to arrest defendant on charge of visiting common nuisance. Alternatively, defendant’s detention was proper under Summers as detention incident to execution of search warrant where: (1) just prior to traffic stop, police observed defendant leaving driver’s home; and (2) once defendant had been informed of search warrant on driver’s home when detained during traffic stop, defendant became flight risk and posed potential danger to police conducting search warrant. Fact that police had secured defendant in handcuffs at traffic stop, placed him in back of police car and brought him back to driver’s home and did not render instant detention unreasonable.

In prosecution on drug distribution and firearms charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress seizure of drugs and gun that police obtained during sobriety checkpoint. While defendant argued that instant checkpoint was unreasonably intrusive, Dist. Ct. could properly find that no 4th Amendment violation occurred where average wait on roadway was only 1 to 5 minutes, and where police asked only limited questions relating to driver's license, registration and insurance. Moreover, instant motorists were warned about checkpoint and could have turned to avoid checkpoint if they wished.