The instant Indictment and a companion Indictment accuse 25 people, mostly young, overwhelmingly people of color, and many of them heroin addicts, of a conspiracy conducted essentially by communication through cell phones.
Argument: I am CJA counsel appointed by the Court to represent my client, Defendant Eddie MartinezFigueroa, who has been charged in a multi-defendant Indictment alleging a conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. I submit this Memorandum in support of the Defendant’s request for a Protective Order to compel the Government to provide discovery and particularization of those electronically recorded intercepts which allegedly involve him directly.
My client is 26 years old and by virtue of a prior drug conviction is facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison.
The instant Indictment and a companion Indictment accuse 25 people, mostly young, overwhelmingly people of color, and many of them heroin addicts, of a conspiracy conducted essentially by communication through cell phones. Through a seven month investigation involving the DEA, the New York State Police, the United States Attorney’s Office, and other law enforcement agencies, the Government employed video and personal surveillance, GPS tracking, monitoring of pen registers, and four separate Title III eavesdropping warrants, targeting four different cell phones and capturing both oral and texting communications.
Coalition letter to members of Congress regarding provisions of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (H.R. 3162) that threaten civil liberties and go unchecked without vigorous review on its effects.
Amicus curiae brief of Jorge Areiza, Hector Dejesus Puerta, Alejandra Gomez, Darney Gomez-Mesa, the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Argument: Cellular phone communications and text messages are not ‘wire communications’ under G.L. c. 272, § 99. Even if the language of the Massachusetts Wiretap Act covers cellular phone communications, Massachusetts state courts have no authority to issue wiretap warrants for such communications because the legislature did not update the statute as mandated by Congress.