Holguin buy cocaine

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Holguin buy cocaine

Criminal No. United States District Court, D. Robert M. Christopher F. Droney , Peter D. Markle , U. Hernandez , U. The government is ordered to arrange for an in camera examination to be conducted by the court so that the court may determine whether disclosure is warranted. The Defendant Salvatore Bova 'Bova' or ' Defendant ' was indicted along with co- Defendant Alexander Holguin 'Holguin' or 'co- Defendant ' for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine based on events which occurred on December 3, At the suppression hearing, the government produced law enforcement officers who testified that they had been in contact with a confidential informant 'CI' or 'informant' who provided information that the Defendant was selling cocaine. They also testified that prior to their contacts with the CI they had 'information' that the Defendant was selling cocaine. They further testified that on December 3, , they allegedly were contacted by the CI and told that the Defendant would meet another individual at a certain Texaco station located in New Haven at 5 p. According to the officers' testimony, they arrived at the Texaco station at approximately the time described and observed from a distance of approximately 50 to 80 feet the Defendant pass a plastic bag with white or clear substance from his vehicle to the individual in a grey vehicle with New York plates. See Transcript , February 16, , p. According to the officers, this individual turned out to be co- Defendant Alexander Holguin. The court found that the CI's information together with the observation by the officers of an apparent drug transaction which conformed to the CI's report of what would transpire provided probable cause for the arrest of the Defendant on that date. As a result, the court denied the Defendant 's motion to suppress the cocaine seized from the Defendant 's truck at his arrest due to the lawfulness of the arrest and the inevitable inventory of said vehicle incident to arrest. Certain statements made at the scene on such date were suppressed due to the failure of the police to provide the Defendant his Miranda rights, while others on said date and a following date were not suppressed. Since the date of this ruling, the Defendant has submitted sealed affidavits from his wife and himself as well as a report from a polygraph examiner confirming the truthfulness of certain of the Defendant 's statements in his own affidavit. He presently seeks to conduct an interview of the CI and has renewed his request to suppress both tangible evidence and statements. Generally, where the request for the disclosure of an informant is made for the purpose of casting doubt upon the credibility of government witnesses, it will not overcome the informant's privilege. United States v. Russotti , F. Saa , F. Disclosure is not required unless the informant's testimony is material to the defense. Not even an informant's observation of the crime and his status as a witness or a participant alone require disclosure where such testimony would have only marginal value to the Defendant. See id. Jimenez , F. Finally, disclosure is never required at a suppression hearing, but is a matter of discretion for the trial court. See United States v. Raddatz , U. Illinois , U. The question in this case is whether the testimony of the informant is crucial to the Defendant 's pretrial motions such that fairness concerns outweigh the government's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the informant's identity. Aristizabal , No. Foster , F. Molina , F. Where the Defendant seeks disclosure of the identity of an informant on a motion to suppress , disclosure will be deemed appropriate only where the information from the informant constitutes the 'essence,' 'core,' or 'main bulk' of the evidence which would establish probable cause, United States v. Tucker , F. Comissiong , F. Manley , F. During the pre-trial suppression hearing, the government introduced evidence that the CI gave the law enforcement agents a specific tip as to where and when the Defendant would engage in a drug transaction, as well as specific information as to the description of the other participant. At the hearing, those law enforcement agents testified that they witnessed the Defendant engage in a drug transaction in accordance with information provided by the CI and, most importantly in this case , at a specific Texaco gas station in New Haven. The officers allegedly observed the transaction from a distance. They testified that they saw a plastic bag with white or clear substance being passed from the co- Defendant Alexander Holguin to the Defendant. On August 21, , co- Defendant Holguin pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. See Transcript, Aug. During a colloquy with the court , Holguin stated that at no time on December 3, was he at the Texaco station described by the officers at Bova's suppression hearing. Rather, he stated under oath and after being advised of the penalty for perjury that the drug transaction he participated in occurred at Defendant Bova's residence. The court finds that, after a review of the record in this case , Bova's request for disclosure is not made with the sole intent of embarrassing the government. Soles , F. It also finds that his request is not a fishing expedition, cf. Berrios , F. Prueitt , F. Dole v. Local , Int'l. Whether independent evidence establishing probable cause in this case is sufficient to render the CI's information less than the 'essence' or 'core' of probable cause is dependent upon whether the court believes the government's witnesses and their account of the Defendant 's participation in a drug transaction at the Texaco station described. Prior to the officers' receipt of information from the CI, the government had 'information' that Bova was distributing cocaine out of a bar the Defendant owned in New Haven. Transcript , March 4, , p. If the officers' testimony as to their observations on that date is believed, that may render the existence of the CI and information provided by him or her non-essential to the establishment of probable cause to arrest. See Comissiong , F. However, if the officers' testimony as to what they saw is not believed, the CI's information would be the 'core' to establishing probable cause. Because the record reflects a significant discrepancy of what occurred on December 3, , the court is unwilling to find at this stage of the court 's inquiry that the CI's information is less than the 'essence' of probable cause. In addition, even if the independent evidence of the officers' observations is not sufficient to establish probable cause in this case apart from information the CI gave, if it constitutes a sufficient voucher against fabrication, disclosure will not be justified. The court finds similarly, however, that this inquiry is dependent upon the credibility of the government witnesses. Although the court is aware that on-the-scene corroboration of key elements of an informer's tip will usually serve as an additional safeguard against fabrication, see United States v. Carneglia , Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Search over million documents from over countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. Advanced A. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Your World of Legal Intelligence. Citation F. October 1, Whether the CI's tip is the 'essence' or 'core' of probable cause. On-the-scene corroboration of the CI's tip In addition, even if the independent evidence of the officers' observations is not sufficient to establish probable cause in this case apart from information the CI gave, if it constitutes a sufficient voucher against fabrication, disclosure will not be justified. To continue reading. You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits. Request your trial. See also United States v. Holguin, F. The analysis in United States v. In that case, the confidential informant might have played an important role A law enforcement agent's observation of a narcotics transa