USA v. Lang, Sr
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Criminal Action No. 2015-0013 DAMIAN LANG, SR., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Rami S. Badawy, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the Government Yvette D. Ross-Edwards, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss Indictment as the Result of an Unlawful Arrest,” filed on January 12, 2016 (Dkt. No. 59) and the Government’s Opposition thereto, filed on January 19, 2016 (Dkt. No. 66). Defendant moves to dismiss the two- count indictment filed against him in this case on the grounds that he “was the victim of a warrantless arrest executed without probable cause,” and that “[t]he subsequent indictment is the direct result of an unlawful arrest.” (Dkt. No. 59 at 3). Even assuming, arguendo, that Defendant’s arrest was unlawful, “[a]n illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as a bar to subsequent prosecution.” Government of Virgin Islands v. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_15-cr-00013/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_15-cr-00013-0.pdf
SHA-256 de3ce3e6e72cd3d04339d753d2dace80b39cb7eec4e3a5dfeb971062a671b63d
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-de3ce3e6e72c
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Criminal Action No. 2015-0013 DAMIAN LANG, SR., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Rami S. Badawy, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the Government Yvette D. Ross-Edwards, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss Indictment as the Result of an Unlawful Arrest,” filed on January 12, 2016 (Dkt. No. 59) and the Government’s Opposition thereto, filed on January 19, 2016 (Dkt. No. 66). Defendant moves to dismiss the two- count indictment filed against him in this case on the grounds that he “was the victim of a warrantless arrest executed without probable cause,” and that “[t]he subsequent indictment is the direct result of an unlawful arrest.” (Dkt. No. 59 at 3). Even assuming, arguendo, that Defendant’s arrest was unlawful, “[a]n illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as a bar to subsequent prosecution.” Government of Virgin Islands v. Josiah, 641 F.2d 1103, 1105 (3d Cir. 1981) (quoting United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Charles, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9946, at *3 (D.V.I. Jan. 31, 2011). While the “exclusionary principle . . . delimits what proof the Government may offer against the accused at trial . . . [, the defendant] is not himself Case: 1:15-cr-00013-WAL-GWC Document #: 84 Filed: 01/28/16 Page 1 of 2 2 a suppressible ‘fruit,’ and the illegality of his detention cannot deprive the Government of the opportunity to prove his guilt through the introduction of evidence wholly untainted by [] police misconduct.” United States v. Riggins, 319 F. App’x 180, 182 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Crews, 445 U.S. at 474); see also Charles, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9946, at *3. In the instant case, Defendant seeks to “suppress [his] arrest on grounds of lack of probable cause,” and argues that “the charges that emanate from that unlawful arrest should be dismissed.” (Dkt. No. 59 at 1, 4). However, an indictment may not be dismissed “simply because the defendant was illegally arrested.” Riggins, 319 F. App’x at 182; see also Charles, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9946, at *3 n.1 (stating that an attack on the legality of an arrest is insufficient to warrant dismissal of an indictment). Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment. UPON CONSIDERATION of the foregoing, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss Indictment as the Result of an Unlawful Arrest” is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Date: January 28, 2016 ________/s/________ RAYMOND L. FINCH Senior District Judge Case: 1:15-cr-00013-WAL-GWC Document #: 84 Filed: 01/28/16 Page 2 of 2