Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.

ALRIC BERRY

: : : : : : : :

Criminal No. L-03-0313

MEMORANDUM On January 21, 2004, the Court issued a brief Order denying Defendant Alric Berry's ("Berry") Motion to Suppress Evidence. The Court now writes to explain its ruling. I. BACKGROUND On April 9, 2003, Judge Thomas Bollinger of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County authorized the placement for sixty days of an electronic tracking device on a car owned by Monika Hill ("Hill"), Berry's former co-defendant. On April 9th, armed with the court order, police placed a global positioning system ("GPS") under the bumper of Hill's Mercedes Benz. The GPS provided the police with information that Hill's car traveled to New York City four times within the next sixty days. Although the court order expired on June 8th, the GPS continued to record information about the movements of Hill's Mercedes Benz, and the police learned that her car made a fifth trip to New York City on June 12th, returning to Maryland on June 14th. Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") Special Agent Todd Edwards ("Edwards"), suspecting that Hill was trafficking in drugs, applied for a warrant to search Hill's apartment. In his affidavit, Edwards mentioned all five trips that Hill's vehicle made to New York City. On June 23,

2003, Judge A. Gordon Boone of the District Court of Maryland issued a search warrant for Hill's apartment. The police executed the warrant that day, after Berry and Hill had returned from a long trip to Florida by car. Among other things, the police found twenty-three balloons filled with heroin, several digital scales, and a supply of small glass vials. On July 3, 2003, the grand jury returned an indictment charging Berry with: (i) conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, and (ii) possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. The government seeks to introduce the drugs and the drug paraphernalia. Berry has moved to suppress the evidence. On January 16, 2004, the Court held an evidentiary hearing during which Defendant's Counsel argued the following: (i) the information received from the GPS was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, the information cannot support a finding of probable cause to search Hill's apartment; the search warrant for Hill's apartment was invalid because the information in the affidavit was "stale;" and the officers did not comply with the "knock and announce" provisions of 18 U.S.C.

Download USA v. Alric Berry.pdf

Maryland Law