DEA Loses Big Drug Case, Thanks To Illegal Wiretap Warrants Prosecutor Calls 'Procedural Errors'
from the self-inflicted-wounds-all-someone-else's-fault dept
The DOJ's counsel warned the DEA that its illegal wiretaps would get them into trouble.
"It was made very clear to the agents that if you're going to go the state route, then best wishes, good luck and all that, but that case isn't coming to federal court..."But the DEA persisted, because it had a man [read: magistrate judge] on the inside. Judge Helios Hernandez, a state-level judge, approved five times as many wiretap warrants as any other judge in the country, acting as a rubber stamp for the DEA and the California law enforcement agencies it collaborated with. The DEA should have been running these warrant applications through a federal judge, but it seemed much happier with this arrangement.
"They'd want to bring these cases into the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the feds would tell them no (expletive) way," a former Justice Department official said.
The highly-questionable wiretap warrants have finally started to cause it problems. Brad Heath and Brett Kelman of USA Today -- the journalists who uncovered the massive, illegal wiretap program -- are now reporting that one of the faulty warrants has just cost the DEA a year's worth of surveillance efforts and, quite possibly, a significant amount of seized assets.
Federal drug agents spent months watching a tiny California jewelry store sandwiched between an auto parts shop and an apartment house with bars on its windows. They secretly recorded its owner’s phone calls and intercepted couriers carrying away boxes full of cash, sometimes stuffed with $100,000 or more. For more than a year, they gathered evidence that the store was laundering millions of dollars for drug traffickers.The problem with the warrants used in this case were numerous. First, many of the suspects were prosecuted in San Bernardino while the wiretap warrants themselves were issued by the friendly courts in Riverside. On top of that, the warrants -- which were supposed to be signed only by a top prosecutor -- were signed by lower-level lawyers. This practice ran afoul of a restriction enacted in response to the FBI's abuse of wiretaps to surveil civil rights leaders in the 1960s.
[...]
Prosecutors determined that wiretaps the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used as the core of its investigation were illegal and couldn’t be used in court. Four suspects went free, and they want the government to give back nearly $800,000 drug agents seized.
Because Riverside District Attorney Paul Zellerbach rarely felt the need to comply with this restriction, hundreds of granted warrants are equally suspect. More cases are likely to be tossed in the future. Defense lawyers as far away as Kentucky and Oregon (where Riverside-granted warrants were deployed) are taking a closer look at the government's paperwork.
The most ridiculous reaction has come from the head of the office that just saw all of its evidence tossed. According to San Bernardino's top prosecutor, illegal wiretap warrants are no big deal -- certainly not worthy of having a yearlong investigation nullified.
“These people were dealing in drugs, and they are guilty, and because of a procedural issue and a suppression motion, they got away with it,” said Mike Ramos, the district attorney in San Bernardino, Calif., whose office prosecuted the case.Man, those "getting away with it" grapes look incredibly sour. For many years, it has been the DEA and local law enforcement "getting away with it." These "procedural errors" never seemed to concern the agencies that used illegally obtained evidence to put people in prison. It's not until one gets away that anyone expresses an opinion on hundreds of illegal wiretap warrants. And the statement that's delivered isn't one of regret or contrition, but one of resentment that "guilty" people can also benefit from "procedural errors."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, dea, helios hernandez, riverside, san bernardino, warrants, wiretaps
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Exactly the sort of mindset you want in a DA
No, as a matter of fact, they are not guilty, until they've been convicted in a court of law. And if you cannot do that following the laws, guess what, it's not the fault of the law, or due to a 'procedural issue', it's your fault.
Either follow the laws, or don't bother in the first place.
I'm glad this blew up in their face, and while I'd love to think that they'd learn their lesson, and maybe start, oh I dunno, following the law, I fully expect them to instead whine about how it's just too hard to do so, and won't some courageous lawmaker step in and solve the problem for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exactly the sort of mindset you want in a DA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exactly the sort of mindset you want in a DA
Hopefully a mess like this will lead the DEA to clean up their act so more guilty people won't get away with it like this.
Possible, but I wouldn't put high odds on it. More likely they'll just try and find a more agreeable judge for future cases, one who's more willing to overlook 'procedural issues' if it means throwing the book at a druggie/dealer. Can't be that hard to find a federal judge willing to buy the 'good faith exception' excuse usually trotted out in such cases to allow illegally obtained evidence to be admissible after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Exactly the sort of mindset you want in a DA
I've got to wonder where these guys (judge & prosecutor) got their training. Reading stories like this sounds like they think it's just a game. Roll this dice, or press this button, ... They read the instructions so they think they understand the repercussions of their actions.
However, they've completely ignored the big picture questions like "Why?" They appear to have completely missed that "nation of laws, not of men" stuff and are just working to build up their score because that's what they learned it was all about. Whoever hired them is incompetent and to blame for allowing messes like this to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exactly the sort of mindset you want in a DA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exactly the sort of mindset you want in a DA
The maverick who plays by his own rules dishing out his own brand of justice is celebrated while those law enforcement agents who follow procedure to the letter are dismissed as dull jobsworths ('s more'n me job's worth, guv!) getting in the way with their demands for compliance with the law.
Whatever did the entertainment powers that be expect would happen if they continually drip-feed that trope to the public? As long as the people believe that this only affects the bad guys, they're not going to give enough of a damn to kick up a stink about it.
The idea that criminals are getting away with the most heinous crimes "on a technicality" will persist until enough of us call this out for the B.S. that it is. I don't like the idea of some unrepentant felon thumbing his nose at the law because they can't do their job right but they ought to be getting their job right first time. /End rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because that seems to be some seriously flawed logic there, given that the DEA is supposed to enforce the law, not pretend like it's only guidelines.
That's the province of Pirates (Source - Pirates of the Caribbean)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is known as "tyranny". Laws apply only to the little people and commoners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Drugs! War! Rules and/or laws have no bearing when you're dealing with drugs and war! And having judges who are willing to look the other way for Drug War related actions certainly helps along the idea that anything goes as long as it's in the name of Drugs and War!
Sarcasm aside, until and unless judges and lawmakers are actually willing to stand up for the rights of the public, even the rights of drug users/dealers, then you'll get cases like this, where even a judge and DA is willing to 'cut corners' if it means making a conviction(though thankfully the conviction part didn't happen this time).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are probably many readers here who think that drug laws are this century's prohibition: laws that do more harm than good. The only people who benefit from the laws are the drug lords.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Drug lords have benefited by being able to charge premium prices because illicit drugs are illegal. The LEOs have benefited richly in toys and numbers of personnel. Politicians have benefited richly from having an easy "for the children" campaign issue. The corporate owned and administered prison system is swimming in cash the former provide it to house the losers. Pretty much all of them benefit from a ridiculously relaxed legal system that encourages the "White Hats" to try anything they think might succeed in their favor.
Without propping up the drug lords' incentives, none of the rest would have been possible. It's quite the scam. Al Capone would've loved it. I expect he would've invested his profits in the prison system as his long term hedge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ending the war will require people to change their reliance on this distorted market created by government manipulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whether it's a matter of justice, where you don't care to see anyone's rights trampled, anyone punished unfairly, or simple self-interest, where you realize that damage to their rights is damage to your rights, defending people's rights can make for some strange support between groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Helios Hernandez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Helios Hernandez
Why, Helios Hernandez, Sr, of course!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Helios Hernandez
Sun Yat Sen's parents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you allow those with power to run wild and protect them from what should be punishment for undermining the very things they are charged with upholding you destroy the whole system. Like with many things we are so very worried about, perhaps we should spend more time looking at "our" actions and make sure they are up to the basic standards required in the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, something the war on drugs is good for
So tossing such cases to teach the DEA a lesson does not leave a judge in the ugly situation of having to explain this step to direct victims and/or their relatives.
Either way, you need to teach law enforcement that it has to heed the laws. But it's much harder to go through with when victims are present in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, something the war on drugs is good for
Sadly, that's not true. The "War On Drugs" has been allowed to spill over onto almost anyone. Just walking down the street, or carrying a bag of cash on a train or plane or driving a vehicle, lets the cops assume "proceeds of illicit drugs" leading to civil asset forfeiture, and you have to fight to get it back whether or not you've ever been involved with illicit drugs.
You mean when they're in court trying to prove their cash, their car, or other property is innocent and should never have been taken in the first place?
The law is an ass and the cure is worse than the disease. They had to pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of Prohibition 1.0. What's Prohibition 2.0 cost so far? I suspect it's incalculable considering all the lives it's crushed under boot heels all around the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DEA and prosecutors BROKE THE LAW, and were found to have done so in a court of law.
What punishments are being meted out to those that broke the law? I'm not talking about the money launderers. I'm talking about the people requesting and granting the wiretaps? These people were found to have engaged in illegal wiretapping and the best that can be done is dismiss the evidence? Is that judge that granted the wiretaps still a judge? Is the prosecutor still practicing law?
Where is the stick to prevent them from doing the same again and again and again, only losing one case out of many ("due to a procedural error") when a sharp-eyed judge realizes that their cases are based on flimsy and illegal evidence?
Until these sort of actions come with a real threat to those perpetrating them, there is nothing that will make the DEA cowboys and their minions change their act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and wealthy criminals will hire high IQ lawyers (and bankers)
...
what could go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got to hand it to those morons, they want to hobble defendant's rights so that they are found guilty. We should just get rid of the courts and allow prosecutors to just sentence defendants without a trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Way ahead of you. Look up "plea deal". You get to pick between 2 years in prison and paying $300000 in legal fees to have a serious chance of whittling down 40 years of charges to less than that.
Independent of actual guilt of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Call
No, they "get away with it" (assuming they are actually guilty, a big leap) only because a whole office ignored the fundamental rules and case law of their business - law - through either total laziness, complete incompetence, or blatant disregard for correct procedures. The blame is entirely upon Ramos and his office for one or all of those failings. They basically handed people couriering millions of dollars of suspect money a "get out of jail free" card by not doing their job properly.
Presumably there's nothing in this operation that would not have passed muster, done correctly, with the proper procedure? If procedure is not important, why not just waterboard the suspects until they confess all the details? That is supposed to be legal too, if you find the right judge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it no longer seems strange at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Several things bother me about that sentence. I tried to reframe it dropping the reference to the "suppression motion" - as it would likely not exist if the procedures were correctly followed.
“These people were dealing in drugs, and they are guilty, and because of a procedural issue, they got away with it,”
It still bothered me. So I took out the reference to them being guilty, because due to the procedural issue, they were never found guilty, except within the confines of the prosecutor's head.
“These people were dealing in drugs, and because of a procedural issue, they got away with it,”
But leaving it as-is made things a bit vague. So I decided to put something in. This, I believe, is what he truly meant to say:
“These people were dealing in drugs, and because of a procedural issue that we created, they got away with it,”
This isn't a matter of the defendants playing "nitpick" with minute details - this is about agents purposefully circumventing the law to achieve a conviction. You have to wonder how weak a case must be, if they can't even be bothered to properly get a warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technicalities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nuff sedd
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]