United States v. Mensah

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BENJAMIN MENSAH, Defendant.

No. 2:23-cr-00636-FLA

United States District Court, C.D. California

February 27, 2024

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE [DKT. 35]

FERNANDO L. AENEEE-ROCHA, United States District Judge.

RULING

Before the court is defendant Benjamin Mensah's (“defendant”) Motion to Suppress Evidence (“Motion”). Dkt. 35. Plaintiff the United States of America (“government”) opposes the motion. Dkt. 39 (“Opp'n”). On February 23, 2024, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion.

For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS the Motion.

BACKGROUND

A March 5, 2023 Seizure of Shipment and Subsequent Investigation

On March 3, 2023, United States Customs and Border Patrol agents at Los Angeles International Airport placed a hold on a cargo shipment destined for Onehunga, New Zealand (“Drug Shipment”). Criminal Complaint, Dkt. 1 at 5.^[1] A search of the Drug Shipment revealed 20 vacuum-sealed bags containing approximately 264.5 kilograms of pure methamphetamine. Id. at 6.

The government thereafter opened an investigation into the source of the Drug Shipment and discovered information linking defendant to the Drug Shipment, including that: 1) the shipping label on the Drug Shipment was created by Preferred Shipping Incorporated, an authorized reseller of DHL services; 2) an Internet Protocol (“IP”) address ending in .216 (“.216 IP Address”) had repeatedly tracked the Drug Shipment on DHL's website; 3) the .216 IP Address had been used to access Preferred Shipping Incorporated's website on February 27, 2023; 4) the .216 IP Address had been used to access repeatedly an e-mail account listed on the shipping label (“Gmail Account”); 5) the Gmail Account communicated with DHL customer service representatives on 14 occasions between February 27, 2023 and March 24, 2023; 6) defendant was the listed subscriber for the .216 IP Address; 7) the subscriber address for the .216 IP address matched defendant's home address; and 8) defendant's birth date matched the birth date listed for the account holder of the Gmail account. Id. at 6-8.

B. State Search Warrant

While the government's investigation was underway, the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) obtained a state search warrant to search defendant's home for firearms and ammunition based on unrelated reports that defendant had made criminal threats towards his housemate, in violation of California Penal Code § 422(a). Opp'n at 11-12. On October 18, 2023, while executing the state search warrant, LAPD officers found a shotgun, an AR-15 firearm, and an extended magazine containing 22 rounds of 9mm Luger caliber ammunition. Id. at 12; Dkt. 39-1, Ex. C at 10.

C. Section 922(g)(1) Complaint and Arrest Warrant

On October 23, 2023, shortly after defendant was arrested by LAPD (but, ultimately released) on the criminal threats charge, the government charged defendant with being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (“§ 922(g)(1)”) by way of a criminal complaint. Dkt. 39-1, Ex. C. The complaint noted LAPD's execution of the state search warrant resulted in discovery of firearms and ammunition at defendant's home, and that a review of defendant's criminal history records revealed that defendant “[was] a convicted felon” and “ha[d] previously been convicted of [two] felony crimes” in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. Id. at 9-11. The government also applied for and obtained a warrant for defendant's arrest based on the same allegations (“the § 922(g)(1) Arrest Warrant”). Id. at 4; Opp'n at 13.

Also on October 23, 2023, the government filed a separate application for a search warrant to search defendant's home for evidence of drug trafficking based on information discovered during its investigation of the Drug Shipment. Dkt. 39-1, Ex. B. In support of the application, the government detailed its investigation into the Drug Shipment and information connecting defendant to the Drug Shipment. Id.

On October 24, 2023, Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) agents attempted to execute both the search and arrest warrants at defendant's residence. Opp'n at 14. Before HSI agents could execute either, defendant fled his home. Id. Defendant later spoke with a HSI Crisis Negotiator, and informed the negotiator he would not be returning to his residence or surrendering to authorities. Id. HSI agents proceeded with the search of defendant's residence. Id. During the search, HSI agents seized a DHL shipping label to the same address in Onehunga, New Zealand, to which the Drug Shipment was addressed. Opp'n at 14. The shipping label listed the sender as “Benjamin Mensah” and “Jackson Mensah Holdings Incorporated.” Id.

On October 26, 2023, HSI agents located defendant at a restaurant in Inglewood, California, and arrested him pursuant to the § 922(g)(1) Arrest Warrant. Id. Incident to defendant's arrest, HSI agents seized defendant's cellphone from his person and conducted a post-arrest interview of defendant after defendant agreed to waive his Miranda rights. Id., Dkt. 39-1, Ex. D. The government, thereafter, applied for and obtained a search warrant for the contents of defendant's cellphone. Dkt. 391, Ex. A.

D. Dismissal of § 922(g)(1) Charge and Superseding Indictment

After a federal grand jury returned an indictment on the § 922(g)(1) charge, see United States v. Mensah, Case No. 2:23-cr-00550-HDV, Dkt. 14 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2023), defendant's attorney contacted the government regarding purported deficiencies with the pending § 922(g)(1) charge. Opp'n at 15. Specifically, counsel argued that defendant's underlying Georgia felony convictions were insufficient to form the basis of a § 922(g)(1) charge, because defendant had been exonerated under Georgia's First Offender Act (O.C.G.A. § 42-8-60 et seq., “First Offender Act”), and thus, was never convicted. Opp'n at 15.

On December 8, 2023, the government filed a federal criminal complaint in the instant matter, charging defendant with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and attempted exportation of methamphetamine. See Dkt. 1. On December 18, 2023, the government voluntarily moved to dismiss the indictment charging defendant with a violation of § 922(g)(1). United States v. Mensah, Case No. 2:23-cr-00550-HDV, Dkt. 20. On December 19, 2023, a grand jury returned an indictment in the instant matter, charging defendant with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and attempted exportation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 953(c), 963, 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(1)(H). Dkt. 12.

E. Procedural Posture

On February 5, 2024, defendant filed the instant Motion, seeking suppression of evidence obtained as a result of his arrest and requesting a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (“Franks hearing”) to assess the veracity of the affidavit filed in support of the § 922(g)(1) Arrest Warrant. Mot. at 13. Upon finding defendant had made a preliminary showing of the existence of a false statement or omission that was material to the determination of probable cause in issuing the § 922(g)(1) Arrest Warrant, the court granted the request and held a Franks hearing on February 23, 2024. Dkts. 44-45.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The Fourth Amendment provides “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. In general, searches and seizures are unreasonable and invalid unless based on probable cause and executed pursuant to a warrant. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 148 (2013). “Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting officers, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that [the defendant] had committed a crime.” United States v. Garza, 980 F.2d 546, 550 (9th Cir. 1992). Evidence derived from conduct violative of the Fourth Amendment is ordinarily tainted by the prior illegal conduct, and thus, inadmissible, subject to certain recognized exceptions. United States v. Gorman, 859 F.3d 706, 716 (9th Cir. 2017).

An evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware allows a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of a warrant if he makes a “substantial preliminary showing” that law enforcement officers made a false statement or omission “knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth,” and that the statement or omission was “necessary to the finding of probable cause.” 438 U.S. at 155-56 (1978). To prevail on a Franks challenge, the defendant must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the affiant officer intentionally or recklessly made false statements or omissions that were material and necessary to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Perkins, 850 F.3d 1109, 1116 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Martinez-Garcia, 397 F.3d 1205, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2005)). If a defendant satisfies both requirements, the “warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 156.

II. Analysis

Defendant argues the affidavit filed in support of the § 922(g)(1) Arrest Warrant contained deliberate or reckless misrepresentations and omissions, because the government alleged defendant was a convicted felon, when in fact defendant's guilt had not been adjudicated resulting in no final judgment of conviction, pursuant to the First Offender Act. Mot. at 13-15; Dkt. 39-1, Ex. C at 10-11.^[2] Defendant's status as a convicted felon is unquestionably material and necessary to the finding of probable cause in the § 922(g)(1)...