Case Law United States v. Peeples

United States v. Peeples

Document Cited Authorities (41) Cited in (21) Related

Katherine A. Gregory, Assistant United States Attorney, for James P. Kennedy, Jr., United States Attorney, Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY, for Appellee.

Jillian S. Harrington, Monroe Township, NJ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Walker, Cabranes, and Sack, Circuit Judges.

José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judge:

On January 5, 2017, at approximately 8:20 a.m., Joseph W. Peeples, III ("Peeples") robbed a bank in Rochester, New York and immediately fled the scene.1 Carrying over $100,000 in large stacks of cash, Peeples needed to escape. His ultimate destination? Unclear, perhaps Mexico (at least, according to one passing statement by Peeples). His escape plan? Also unclear. Perhaps trying to figure one out on the run, Peeples made several stops. He took a cab and checked in to a hotel in Rochester using his own name. Later that morning, he boarded a Greyhound bus headed for New York City. But he never made it there. Instead, he got off the bus in Binghamton and tried to buy a car. Unable to do so, he found a hotel, booked a room, and asked an employee where he could find a shopping mall and a strip club.

The escape route by way of Binghamton did not turn out to be a successful one for Peeples. Before boarding the bus in Rochester, Peeples accidentally left behind an unbroken trail of evidence—the sunglasses, sweatshirt, and shirt that he wore during the robbery, and approximately $53,400 in cash. With the assistance of eyewitnesses, extensive video surveillance, and physical evidence, law enforcement agents were able to trace Peeples’ steps with notable precision. Eleven hours later, and approximately 140 miles away from the Rochester bank, Peeples, then a guest in the Grand Royale Hotel in Binghamton, was arrested.

Peeples now appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., Chief Judge ) convicting him, following a jury trial, of bank robbery, entering a bank with the intent to commit larceny, and bank larceny. On appeal, Peeples contends that his judgment of conviction should be vacated for two principal reasons.

First , Peeples argues that the District Court erred in declining to dismiss the criminal charges against him because: (i) he was transferred outside of the district of arrest to the district where the crime took place without first appearing before a magistrate judge, in asserted violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(c)(2) ;2 and (ii) the magistrate judge failed to sign the affidavit attached to the complaint in alleged violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 3,3 even though he signed the face of the complaint.

Second , Peeples argues that the District Court erred in admitting: (i) the bank employees’ testimony identifying Peeples for the first time at trial in alleged violation of his due process rights; and (ii) physical evidence seized from the Binghamton hotel room in alleged violation of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The two main questions presented in this case are: (1) whether dismissal of a criminal complaint is the appropriate remedy for a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(c) ; and (2) whether a magistrate judge's failure to sign the jurat on the last page of the affidavit attached to the criminal complaint renders the complaint invalid under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 3, even where the magistrate judge did sign the complaint itself.4

We conclude that, in the circumstances presented, the dismissal of criminal charges is not the appropriate remedy for a violation of Rule 5(c) and that the magistrate judge's failure to sign the affidavit attached to the criminal complaint did not render the complaint invalid. We also conclude that Peeples’ remaining evidentiary challenges do not warrant vacatur of his conviction. Accordingly, the August 1, 2018 judgment the District Court is AFFIRMED .

BACKGROUND

When Peeples entered a Chase Bank in Rochester on January 5, 2017, he was wearing a black knit cap, gold rimmed sunglasses, a black pullover sweatshirt, black jeans, and black boots. There were two bank employees present: Jeannine Furioso and Patricia Bentley. Pretending to have trouble with his bank account, Peeples approached Furioso and handed her a black bag and a note with robbery instructions. The note said: "listen, you need to cooperate, I want large bills, otherwise everybody will die today."5

Upon receipt of the threatening note, Furioso nervously walked over to Bentley in the teller line and handed her the bag so that Bentley could retrieve the money.

Peeples objected. He "want[ed] the money out of the vault," not "out of [teller] drawer."6 He also exclaimed, "I'm not playing around, I've done this before, hurry up."7 Peeples, who appeared to have something in the front of his pullover sweatshirt, had given the impression to Furioso and Bentley that he was carrying a "gun," a "bomb," or some kind of "weapon."8

Furioso and Bentley entered their combinations to open the vault. Once inside the vault, Peeples began to put stacks of cash in his black bag. He then exited the bank as he had entered: through the front door, but now with more than $100,000 in his bag. Furioso immediately notified security and called the police.

As confirmed by surveillance video and the eyewitness testimony of a parking garage attendant, a man wearing all black and carrying a black bag, identified at trial as Peeples, was seen minutes after the robbery running down the bank's stairs and towards the cab stand at the nearby Hyatt Hotel. There, around 8:30 a.m., Peeples got into a J & J taxicab. According to the cab driver, they arrived at a Greyhound bus station around 8:47 a.m. The driver gave Peeples a business card and, as Peeples rushed out of the cab, he left behind in the back seat his sunglasses, the black sweatshirt, and $9,900 in the sweatshirt's pockets, all of which was recovered by the Rochester police. As shown on video, Peeples entered the bus station and headed to the men's bathroom. Minutes later, he came out of the bathroom wearing different clothing and placed something in the garbage can outside the bathroom. It was not mere trash though, but rather, a black shirt and $43,500 in cash, also recovered by Rochester police.

Video surveillance showed Peeples leaving the station and getting into another taxi. According to the testimony of Gurmit Ram, the driver of the second taxi, Peeples headed to a Quality Inn Hotel. The hotel's general manager, in testimony at trial, confirmed Peeples’ brief visit to the Quality Inn. According to the manager, an individual who identified himself as "Joseph W. Peeples, III" and was carrying large amounts of cash checked in to the hotel that morning. Peeples left the hotel and returned to the bus station about an hour later in Ram's cab. According to video surveillance, around 10:15 a.m., Peeples entered the bus station and purchased a bus ticket to New York City. At approximately 10:45 a.m., Peeples boarded the bus; but he did not arrive at his apparent destination. Instead, according to the bus driver, between 2:10 and 2:20 p.m., Peeples got off the bus in Binghamton.

In Binghamton, Peeples got into another taxi. According to the driver, Youssif Saleh, Peeples asked to be driven to various places. First, he went to a liquor store. Then, wanting to buy a car in cash, Peeples went to a car dealership. Realizing that he needed insurance to buy the car, Peeples headed to a State Farm location. But that did not work for Peeples either. Unable to buy insurance or a car, Peeples opted to look for a hotel.

The first two hotels Peeples tried refused to book him a room without a credit card. Then, Saleh drove Peeples to the Grand Royale Hotel, where Peeples was finally able to book a room (Room 310) for $600 in cash. Saleh gave Peeples his business card and left. Once settled in, Peeples asked a hotel employee where he could find a shopping mall and a strip club.

At 9:00 p.m., having traced Peeples’ movements by reviewing video surveillance material and speaking with several eyewitnesses, Special Agent John Bokal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") arrived at the Grand Royale Hotel. Joined by a hotel employee, Special Agent Bokal headed to Room 310 to look for Peeples. On their way to the room, they ran into Peeples, who was sitting on the stairs, and Special Agent Bokal immediately placed Peeples under arrest. In response, Peeples asked the employee, "[W]ho ratted me out, was it you?"9 He also exclaimed, "you know they're after me," "you were supposed to let me get to Mexico," "you know what I did," and "don't go in my room without a warrant."10

Peeples was taken away and detained in the Binghamton Police Department—in the Northern District of New York—where he was questioned by Special Agent Bokal. At the police station, after waiving his Miranda rights, Peeples confessed to: (1) having robbed the Chase bank in Rochester; (2) accidentally leaving the money in the back seat of the J & J Taxi and in the garbage can at the Greyhound bus station in Rochester; and (3) hiding the remaining stacks of cash inside Room 310. In the meantime, police officers were posted outside of Room 310 to secure the area pending a search warrant.

The next day, on January 6, 2017, a magistrate judge in the Northern District of New York approved the search warrant application. Police officers executed the warrant in Room 310 and found, among other things, $48,700 in cash; business cards from the J & J Taxi driver, from Ram, and from Saleh; a bag; a room key to a Quality Inn Hotel; a Greyhound bus ticket from Rochester to New York City for a January 5, 2017, 10:55 a.m. bus; and a benefits card and a Chase card in Peeples’ name.

...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2023
United States v. Daskal
"...the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant[.]' " United States v. Peeples, 962 F.3d 677, 688-89 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Trzaska, 111 F.3d at 1026).8 Here, the Government established probable cause for the Federal Phones Warran..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2022
United States v. Kamaldoss
"...and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.” Id. at 688-89 (internal marks and citation omitted). Here, ample additional evidence was included in Agent Connor's affidavit in support of the May 24 warrant-..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit – 2022
United States v. Dominguez-Caicedo
"...remedy for violation of Rule 5, with holdings that appear to foreclose dismissal even in egregious circumstances. United States v. Peeples , 962 F.3d 677, 687–88 (2d Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Cooke , 853 F.3d 464, 471 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that because the purpose of Rule 5 is to det..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota – 2021
United States v. Jones, 5:20-CR-50141(03)-JLV
"... ... Bell, 740 A.2d ... 958, 962-67 (D.C. 1999) ... [ 26 ] See United States v. Cooke, ... 853 F.3d 464, 471 (8th Cir. 2017) ; United States v ... C havez, 705 F.3d 381, 385-86 (8th Cir. 2013) ; see ... also United States v. Peeples, 962 F.3d 677, 686 (2d ... Cir. 2020)(Rule 5(a)'s history confirms that the remedy ... for a violation of the Rule is the exclusion of evidence, not ... dismissal of a criminal case); United States v ... Bibb , 194 Fed.Appx. 619, 623 (11th Cir. 2006) (“we ... have ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2023
United States v. Daskal
"... ... 1997). “In those circumstances, ‘a reviewing ... court should excise the tainted evidence and determine ... whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a ... neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a ... warrantf.]'” United States v. Peeples, 962 ... F.3d 677, 688-89 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Trzaska, ... F.3d at 1026). [ 8 ] ...          Here, ... the Government established probable cause for the Federal ... Phones Warrant without relying on the information obtained ... under the New York ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2023
United States v. Daskal
"...the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant[.]' " United States v. Peeples, 962 F.3d 677, 688-89 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Trzaska, 111 F.3d at 1026).8 Here, the Government established probable cause for the Federal Phones Warran..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2022
United States v. Kamaldoss
"...and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.” Id. at 688-89 (internal marks and citation omitted). Here, ample additional evidence was included in Agent Connor's affidavit in support of the May 24 warrant-..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit – 2022
United States v. Dominguez-Caicedo
"...remedy for violation of Rule 5, with holdings that appear to foreclose dismissal even in egregious circumstances. United States v. Peeples , 962 F.3d 677, 687–88 (2d Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Cooke , 853 F.3d 464, 471 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that because the purpose of Rule 5 is to det..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota – 2021
United States v. Jones, 5:20-CR-50141(03)-JLV
"... ... Bell, 740 A.2d ... 958, 962-67 (D.C. 1999) ... [ 26 ] See United States v. Cooke, ... 853 F.3d 464, 471 (8th Cir. 2017) ; United States v ... C havez, 705 F.3d 381, 385-86 (8th Cir. 2013) ; see ... also United States v. Peeples, 962 F.3d 677, 686 (2d ... Cir. 2020)(Rule 5(a)'s history confirms that the remedy ... for a violation of the Rule is the exclusion of evidence, not ... dismissal of a criminal case); United States v ... Bibb , 194 Fed.Appx. 619, 623 (11th Cir. 2006) (“we ... have ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2023
United States v. Daskal
"... ... 1997). “In those circumstances, ‘a reviewing ... court should excise the tainted evidence and determine ... whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a ... neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a ... warrantf.]'” United States v. Peeples, 962 ... F.3d 677, 688-89 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Trzaska, ... F.3d at 1026). [ 8 ] ...          Here, ... the Government established probable cause for the Federal ... Phones Warrant without relying on the information obtained ... under the New York ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex