Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
enforcement, and was only intended for the purpose of obtaining an arrest and
informant statistic to aid in DEFENDANT,.',' ongoing quest to qualify for the receipt
offederal and other funding dollars, and that this entire matter merits referral to
the appropriate federal law enforcement agency for a criminal investigation.
On 04/04/ 13, DEP WEBER described meeting with the Cls after the
controlled buy, taking the evidence and having CI 13-0350 ID SADEK:
16. Case Report 13-030 by DEP WEBER dated 04/ 11 /1~3
Agent BOELKE and I monitored both Cis back to a predetermined location.
58
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
59
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
On 04/04/ 13, DEP WEBER took photographs of the messages sent from
Tiil l-ialllll (Cl# 13-0350) to SAD EK:
18. Cellphone Text Message Photogr~phg~-lted 04/04/ 1:3_
11:45AM CI 13-0350: Hey can you meet up somewhere around 4? And
how much you want for that 8th?
11 :54AM SADEK: 60 ill be around
11 :55AM CI 13-0350: K
2:33PM CI 13-0350: Where do you wanna meet
2:35PM SADEK: Ide it up to u
2:36PM CI 13-0350: Alright how about back of the parking lot of
norguard and ro bo
2:42PM SADEK: Yeah sounds good
3:54PM CI 13-0350: Hey me arid my buddy are on our way
60
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
On 04/04/ 13, DEP WEBER took a photograph of the NIK ldt test on the
marijuana purchased from SADEK:
19. NIK KIT test photograph Case 13--030 by DEP WEBER:
photograph. oftest kit indicating purple for marijuana (p. l, Item 24)
On 05/ 14/ 13, the drug lab report on the marijuana purchased from
SADEK is completed:
22. Forensic Discovery Packet for 13-030 date O§/J4/J~
Drug Lab Report, AGO, by Marc Larson, Forensic Scientist
Item 1 Substances found: Cannabis 2.22 grams
(p.1-3, Item 33)
61
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
During WEBER'S Deposition on 10/ 17 / 17, he alleged that it was the two
Cls' idea to target SADEK and not WEBER'S. He even admitted that the
typical practice at SEMCA is to allow Cls to pick targets and locations:
23. DEF JASON WEBER Deposition dated 10/1.7 / 17:
A So, yeah. I would imagine that the two confidential informants, they had
set that up. Typically that's what we do is we have the Cl arrange the
amount, because they are arranging the amounts that they typically buy,
and typically they arrange locations, and so forth.
Q And we already talked about why there were two confidential informants
in this case?
A Correct,
Q That was more their idea than your's'?
A Correct. That's correct.
Q Did either of the confidential informants in that situation indicate to you
that they had previously purchased marijuana from Andrew SADEK?
A I don't recall, I guess, if
in because Tll's contact was Andrew. So I don't know if he was
W-'s contact, but whether
M.
TIii - I don't know. I think they brought TIii
62
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
Q Did those two individuals ever say to you, "Hey, we've bought from
Andrew before."?
A I don't recall.
(Lines 1-7 p. 74, Item 10)
63
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
On 04/09/ 13, DEP WEBER took photographs of the $20 buy money:
27. Buy money serial numbers 13-033 by DEP WEBER dated
04/04/13
Photograph of $20 with serial numbers
( 1 page, Item 38)
On 04/09/13, DEP WEBER described initially meeting with the two Cis
before the controlled buy. There are no details about which CI set up the
con trolled by against SAD EK, or any of the other vital details, covered
and mandated in National and professional standards (listed below):
28. Case Report 13-033 by DEP WEBER dated 04/18/13
DETAILS: At approximately 2:47pm, I met with both Cl's at a
predetermined location. I searched both Cl's. Cl 13-0350 had no money or
contraband. CI 13-0345 had a wallet, but no contraband. The CI'S wallet
was taken until the deal was done. Agent John Boelke searched Cl # 13-
0345>s vehicle and found no money or contraband. I issued CI # 13-0350
$20 from the buy fund money.
At approximately 2:50pm, I started the transmitter recorder and placed it
on CI #13-0350. Then both Cis left the predetermined located and went to
Lot #4 on NDSCS Campus where the deal was set up. This location is
located in the City of Wahpeton in the County of Richland. Agent JOHN
BOELKE and I monitored the Cis to this location. Agent BLAINE O'HARA
and Agent JOHN SMYKOWSKI monitored the parking lot where the deal
took place. (p. l-2, Item 40)
64
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
H-
CI 13-0350 ~ Okay.
breathing
CI 13-0350 Holy god it's cold outside.
CI 13-0345 W-: Yeah.
driving
CI 13-0345 WIIII That's pretty awesome you could like hide a lot of shit
in there where this arm is.
static
CI 13-0350 ~ : Yeah they weren't too bad, like 20 bucks at Costco
or whatever. Yeah especially the arm thing that folds up too.
CI 13-0345 ~ : Yeah like they actually have a spot for it.
driving
65
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
66
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
67
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
CI 13-0350 ~ [indiscernible]
CI 13-0345 WIii: Yeah he got in his car and drove.
CI 13-0350 HIIIIIIII: Oh wait here he comes. Yeah there he is. Alright,
I'm going to get out. "Here's your 20, looks good."
car door closes, walking
CI 13-0350 H- : Here's your 20 ... Looks good. See you later.
SADEK: Later,
ioalkinq, silence
CI 13-0350 HIIIIIIII: I think he was scared.
CI 13-0345 WIii: About what?
CI 13-0350 H-: There was another car parked over there, looking.
With a dude in it.
CI 13-0345 WIii: Oh yeah?
car engine running
CI 13-0350 HIIIIIIII: I don't think it was anything but I think he was a
little scared. Now see he's leaving now.
CI 13-0345 WIii: Yeah.
driunq, silence
CI 13-0350 HIIIIIIII: Slow down blackie chan.
CI 13-0345 W-: Please no. Now is not -
CI 13-0350 ~: You don't think they're going to move on him
now, eh? I wonder where he's getting his pot.
CI 13-0345 Jtlll: Yeah, I don't know.
CI 13-0350 ~: Fucking, big old pot ring.
car engine runninq, silence
CI 13-0345 W .. That's kinda a nice car here. I like that Camero.
CI 13-0350 H-: Yep.
driving, silence
68
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
69
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
70
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
the vehicle. This deal took place within a school zone. The CI then got back
into the Cl's vehicle and both CI's left the parking lot. (p.1-2, Item 40)
On 04/09/ 13, DEP WEBER described meeting with the Cis after the
controlled buy, taking the evidence and having CI 13-0350 ID SADEK:
32. Case Report 13-033 by DEP WEBER dated 04/ 18/13
Agent Boelke and I monitored both Cis back to a predetermined location.
At approximately 3:01pm, we met up with both Cis. I recovered the
transmitter/recorder from CI #13-0350 and turned it off. The same CI
also handed me a baggie of marijuana. I searched both Cis and found no
money or contraband. Cl# 13-0345 was given the wallet back. Agent
Boelke searched the Cis' truck and found no money or contraband.
CI #13-0350 identified Andrew SADEK from a North Dakota Driver's
License photo as the individual who delivered the marijuana. The evidence
was taken back to the SEMCA office and photographed and field tested.
The NIK test kit showed up positive for the presence of THC which is
found in marijuana.
All evidence was turned over to Officer O'Hara and the evidence was
secured in the SEMCA evidence room located in the Richland County Law
Enforcement Center. The evidence will be stored in the SEMCA evidence
room until it can be transported to the State Laboratory in Bismarck for
analysis. (p.2··3, Item 40)
71
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
On 04/09/13, DEP WEBER takes a photograph of the NIK kit test on the
marijuana purchased from SADEK:
34, NIK KIT test photograph Case 13-033 by DEP WEBER:
photograph of test kit indicating purple for marijuana (p.1, Item 36)
72
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
On 05/ 14/ 13, the drug lab report on the marijuana purchased from
SADEK is completed:
37. Forensic Discovery Packet for 13-033 date 05/14:/1~
April 2013 to November 2013: Undocumented timeline gap. As of
the present date we have not received any proof of the activities that did
H-
of M. W-'S case is unknown, the status of M. W-
or did not occur between April 2013 to November 2013. The disposition
and
as informants is unknown. Whether or not there was any
TIIIIII
73
MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
Undercover Purchases
of Evidence by Informants
and Probable Cause
§ 7.1 Generally
§ 7.2 The Controlled Buy
§ 7.3 initial informant Debriefing
§ 7.4 Search of Informant and Vehicle
§ 7.5 Funds Providedfor Purchase of Evidence
§ 7.6 Observation of the CL Entering and Exiting the
Location
§ 7.7 Searching the Informant Again
§ 7.8 Follow-up Informant Debriefing
§ 7,9 Informant's Statement
§ 7.10 informant Purchases
§ 7.11 Informant Introduction of Undercover Agent
Appendix 7A The DEA Raid Execution Process
Appendix 7B Operational Plan Format
Appendix 7C Evidence Fund Accounting Receipt
@West Group #1, .'5/98 (LWI)
§ 7.1
74
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
Generally
§ 7.2
The Controlled Buy
Agents routinely receive information from inforrnants regarding
the location of contraband and criminal activity.17The illegally
possessed items are usually narcotics, stolen property, untaxed
liquor, counterfeit money, or illegal weapons. The investigation
will generally develop information in tended to establish
probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant, 18
75
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
to come before a
After the kind of investigation that is supposed
search, embarrassed federal officials paid $2.75 million to
homeowner Donald Carlson, 44. He came out of the 1992 raid with
one quarter of his lung capacity destroyed by federal bullets. Despite
wamings from another cup, the agents had swallowed an entirely
fictitious talc concocted by an informant."
7.3
§
Initial Informant Debriefing
76
MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
77
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
78·
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
79
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
80
MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
81
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
§ 7.5
Funds Provided for Purchase of Evidence
The case agent provides the informant with the funds for
the purchase of evidence. The informant must sign for the
money.57 The tenn "marked money" is often mistakenly
used to describe the funds. The money is not marked for
later retrieval purposes, instead the serial numbers are
recorded on a piece of paper or memorialized in a report,
Some agencies simply Xerox the notes. "Buy money" or
82
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
§ 7.6
Observation of the C.I. Entering and Exiting the
Location59
Once the informant and his vehicle have been searched
the informant should not be permitted to leave the view of
at least one agent. This eliminates the possibility that the in-
formant obtained evidence from any place other than the
targeted location.
During the debriefing process;: the location of the "buy"
was predetermined. The informant should be directed to
make no stops while enroute to the location. Pre-buy
surveillance should be established by members of the
control agent's team. The agent following the CJ. to the buy
location maintains radio communication with the
surveillance team to alert them of the C.I.'s impending
arrival. The surveillance team must observe the informant
enter the targeted location.
The surveillance team should have personally observed
the informant prior to the buy or have been provided with a
photograph of the informant. Often, given little more than a
clothing and physical description of the C.I.
Surveilling agents must maintain surveillance of the
targeted premises until the informant exits. The
informant should be followed from the buy location to a
predetermined meeting place. The surveillance team must
establish that the informant meets with no one other than
the control agent or a member of the surveillance team,
83
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
§ 7.8
Follow-Up Informant Debriefing
Once again the informant must be debriefed. The subjects
covered in the initial debriefing must be reviewed again. The
amount and location of contraband observed during the
controlled buy must be determined. The information will
assist in assessing the immediacy of obtaining a search
warrant. Undue delay may cause the information to become
stale. 60
Informants are rarely called upon to testify in controlled buy
61
search wanant cases. Affidavits containing hearsay from
confidential informants are permitted by the Supreme (Text
continued on page 7-17). Court" and magistrates routinely allow
the prosecution to withhold the informants identity."
§ 7.9
Informant's Statements
Many departments and agencies require that the
informant provide a written statement. The practice
memorializes in the informant's own words the events that
occurred during the undercover purchase. The statement
also makes it more difficult for the recalcitrant informant
84
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
85
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
file. His trne identity does not appear in the debriefing, only
the source's number. 72
State and local agencies have promulgated their own
policies regarding informant statements. The practice
appears more prevalent among departments that have
grown dependent upon informants and experienced
difficulties in their use. 73
§ 7,10
Informant Purchases
Controlled buys are often made anticipating the
possibility that the informant will be called upon to testify as
a material witness. The procedures remain the same as the
"search warrant controlled buy" but with additional steps
to assist in corroboration and to collect damaging
evidence.
Prior to the controlled buy, the informant should be
directed by his control agent to place a telephone call to
the target. The call is consensually tape recorded" by the
agent who is present while the call is made. The consent of
the in- formant must be voluntarily obtained. The tape
recording must be retained as evidence, initialed by both the
agent and informant. [See Chapter 9, Informants and
Electronic Surveillance.]
The informant may also be asked to wear either a
concealed tape recorder or transmitter" during the
controlled buy. The recording of the conversation in the
absence of the agent is permissible since the informant is
acting "under color of law. "76 The tape recording produced
during the pm-chase is maintained as evidence.
Upon return to the prearranged secure location following
the purchase some investigators have the C.I. telephone the
target. This call is also tape recorded and used to elicit
conversation about the transaction that had just transpired.
The post-buy telephone call is generally used if the C.I. had
not consensually tape recorded the earlier transaction. It
also is used to arrange subsequent purchases." The tape
recording of the conversation is also retained as evidence.
Footnotes
86
TRIAL" MICHAEL LEVINE" SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
l See Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 436 (1948), the
Fourth Amendment" protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a
neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often
competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. 11
1.1 Steagald v. United States. 451 U.S. 204, 212"13 (1981).
2 Burkoff, Search Warrant Law Deskbook §.5.2 (Clark Boardman Callaghan).
[ .. ,]
15 Mark Curriden, "Secret Threat to Justice," Nat. L.J. (Feb. 20, 1995), examination of 1,212
warrants in four selected cities.
16Buydv. United States, 116 U.S. 616,625 (1886).
l7 Ortega v. United States, 897 F. Supp. 771, 780 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
18 U.S. Const. amend. N.
19 Katel, "The Trouble With Informants," Newsweek, Jan. 30, 1995, at 1, 48.
20 Burkoff, Search Warrant Law Deskbook § 5.2 (Clark Boardman Callaghan).
21 Commonwealth v. Miley, 460 A.2d 778 (Pa. Super. 1983).
22 Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206,210 (1932).
23 DEA Office of Training, Informant Interaction, VIllA, Use of a C.I. to
Make an Undercover Buy, ·
24 Narcotics Investigators Manual, 'IACP, DEA 1974.
25 "Street Level Narcotics Enforcement," Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Apr.1990, at 11.
26 U.S. Const. amend. N.
27 Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 988 n.5 (1984).
28 Denver Post, July 16, 1993.
29 Steel v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503 (1925).
30 United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971); People v. Cooks, J 41 Cal.
App.3d224, 190 Cal. Rptr. 211,261, cert. denied, 464 U.S.1046 (1983);
State v. Burton, 416 So. 2d. 73,74-75 (La. 1982) (disapproved by Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213 reh'gdenied463 U.S. 1237 (1983).
It is not necessary to verify every detail-just enough to believe the
informant, United States v. Bush, 647 F.2d 357, 363 (3d Cir. 1981 ); People v.
Cooks, 141 Cal. App. 3d 224, 190 Cal. Rptr. 211,261, cert. denied, 464 U.S.
1046 (1983); Show- maker v. State, 52 Md. App. 463, 451 A.2c;l 127, 134-
35 (1982); Commonwealth v. Salvaggio, 307 Pa. Super. 385, 453 A.2d 637,
641 (1982); People v. Kilmer, 87 App. Div. 2d 949, 451 N.Y.S.2d 244, 245
(1982).
87
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
88
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
41 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 241 (1983), recognizing the value of
corroboration of details by police investigation.
42 Id. See Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960); Draper v. United
States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959).
43 U.S. Const. amend. IV.
44 United States v. Klein, 565 F.2d 183 (1st Cir. 1977) ("controlled
substances"); see also United States v. Rome, 809 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1987).
45 Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 141 (1990); Maryland v. Buie, 494
U.S. 325, 330 (1990); Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987); Texas v.
Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741-44 (1983); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S.
443, 466-71 (1971).
46 Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 486 (1965); Steel v. United States, 267
U.S. 498, 504 (1925).
47 United States v. Lunt, 732 F. Supp. 599,603 (W.O. Pa. 1990).
48 Morris v. United States, 507 U.S. 988, 977 F.2d 677, 680-82 (1st Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1588 (1993).
49 See State v. Herbst, 395 N.W.2d 399 (Minn. App. (1986) (warrant
containing no description of narcotics to be seized found defective). See also
Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984).
50 See Thompson v. State, 16 Md. App. 560, 298 A.2d 458 (1973); United
States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971); People v. Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483,
438 N.Y.S.2d 754, 420 N.E.2d 946 (1981); Stale v. Lair, 95 Wash. 2d 706,
630 P.2d 427 (1981).
51 See Thompson v. State, 16 Md. App. 560,298 A.2d 458,461-62 (profit
motive of C.I. provided circumstantial degree ofreliability).
52 See Wesley v. State, 162 Ga. App. 737, 293 S.b.2d 27, 28 (1982)
(informant did not reveal how he knew facts he reported).
53 Narcotics Investigator's Manual, .Undercover Operations Ch. 10 (1974),
at 100. Produced by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of
Operations and Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police.
54 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 246 (1983). See also Massachusetts v.
Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 733 (1984). See, however, Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S.
730, 742 (1983) (plurality opinion of Rehnquist, J.) (probable cause "does not
demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than
false"); United States v. Wayne, 903 F.2d 1188, 1196 (8th Cir. 1990) (same);
United States v. Morales, 851 F. Supp. 112, 115 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ('1a
probability or substantial chance of criminal activity"); Elliott v. State, 597 So.
2d 916, 918 (Fla. App. 1992) ("more likely than not"); State v. Sorbel, 858
89
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
State v. Wilson, 4 Neb. App. 489., 546 N.W.2d 323 (1996); State v. Flores,
512 N.W.2d 128, 132 (Neb. 1994) ("Probable cause is reasonable suspicion
founded on articulable facts."); State v. Wilkinson, 612 A.2d 926, 928 (N.H.
1992) ('"Probable cause to search exists if a [person] of ordinary caution
would be justified in believing that what is sought will be found in the place
to be searched.'"); State v. Riggs, 400 S. ,E.2d 429, 433-34 (N.C. 1991) ("fair
probability or substantial chance"); State v. Erickson, 496 N.W.2d 555, 558
(N.D. 1993) ("probable cause to search exists if it is established that certain
identifiable objects are probably connected with criminal activity and are
probably to be found at the present time at an identifiable place"); State v.
Chambless, 824 P.2d 1183, 1185 (Or. App. 1992) (required showing is "more
likely than not"); State v. Baldoni, 609 A.2d 219, 220 (R.I. 1992)
("probability"); State v. Platt, 574 A.2d 789, 793 (Vt. 1990) ("more likely than
not").
55 Illinois v. Gates, 462 ,U.S. 213,238 (1983).
56 United States v. Cuomo, 479 F.2d 688 (2d Cir 1973).
57 Use of C.I lo Make an Undercover Buy, VIII A 2, Cooperating Individual
Management, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Training,
Quantica, VA.
58 DEA Agents Manual Ch. 61.
59 Use of a CJ to Make a U. C. Buy, VIII(A)( 4), Cooperating Individual
Management, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Training,
Quantica, VA.
59.1 See United States v. McMillan, 508 F.2d 101, 106 (1974).
60 United States v. Miles, 772 F.2d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476
U.S. 1158 reh'g denied, 478 U.S. 1032 (1986) (considering totality of evidence,
warrant was not stale; property was shown to be stolen only two weeks
before, so it was likely still there; omission of when informant saw it thus not
fatal).
Where the object held does not have a ready market or has an enduring
personal use, the standards of staleness are somewhat relaxed. Gerdes v. State,
319 N.W.2cl 710, 713 (Minn. 1982); Evans v. State, 161 Ga. App. 468, 288
S.E.2d 726, 729, appeal after remand, 166 Ga. App. 602, 305 S.E.2d 121
(1982). (that defendant was chopping up cars ten days ago was not stale);
United States v. McCall, 740 F.2cl 1331, 1336-37 (4th Cir. 1984) (two month
90
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
delay in looking for gun; found to be close question, but nature of gun-being
governmental property-made it probable it was still there);
United States v. Shomo, 786 F.2d 981, 984 (10th Cir. 1986) (ten days in
gun case not stale);
United States v. Bascara, supra.
Commonwealth v. Klimkowicz, 331 Pa. Super. 75, 479 A.2d l 086, l 089
(1984) (five weeks not stale in stolen gun case);
United States v. Batchelder, 824 F.2d 563 (7th Cir. 1987) (information
nine months old concerning the purchase of silencer was not stale since affiant
indicated that of twenty-one similar searches, nineteen resulted in seizures);
Cauchon v. United States, 824 F.2d 908 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S.
957 (1987) (eleven-month lapse between tip and warrant did not make the
information stale since the tip concerned the manufacture of controlled
substance and the agents had observed shipments of chemicals to the facility
for several months);
United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir. 1986) (warrant
based on information of trafficking three weeks earlier not stale);
Baty v. State, 401 So. 2d 308, 310 (Ala. App. 1981) (two days in drug case
not stale);
People v. Brown, 166 Cal. App. 3d 1166, 212 Cal. Rptr 907, 909 (1985)
(six- week-old information defendant had two-inch tall marijuana plants was
not stale "considering the size of the plants when first seen.");
Franklin v. State, 179 Ga. App. 220, 345 S.E.2d 912, 913 (1986) (seven
days in ongoing drug operation was not stale);
State v. Fleniken, 451 So. 2d 1342, 1345 (La. App. 1984) (statement from
informant that there was small quantity of drugs on premises two days
earlier is not probable cause to believe greater quantity is there to support a
search warrant);
Commonwealth v. Reddington, 395 Mass. 315, 480 N.E.2d 6 (1985) (seven-
month-old representation defendant had drugs in house was stale; also,
(information was not acted on when it was first heard);
State v. Velishek, 410 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. App. 1987) (one and one-half
months in marijuana cultivation case not stale);
State v. Lindsey, 58 N.C. App. 564,293 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1982) (year-old
information in drug case);
State v. Jannetta, 355 N.W.2d 189, 193-94 (Minn. App. 1984) (child
sexual abuse case and evidence sought was child pornography on two-year-
old information; age of person giving information is a factor of determining
staleness; this was evidence which had enduring criminal utility so the
information was not stale);
91
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
92
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
coercing him into the role of undercover CI, whether or not he had the knowledge
and experience to qualify for the role, is that the primary thrust of the use of the
controlled buy, is to progress a narcotic investigation into sources of supply and
bigger and more important dealers.
Also important to note is that one of the really significant dangers of using
Cls desperate to save themselves by producing an arrest, to conduct controlled
buys of small amounts of drugs, is the possibility of the informant concealing
small amount of druys in a body orifice, and then claiming that he obtained it
from the target. Defendants, not only avoided doing a body cavity search, that is
a national professional standard, but documented almost nothing of an
undercover procedure that should have been documented thoroughly and
meticulously towards the obtaining of sufficient probable cause for a search
warrant, and/ or, for trial testimony. In short, WEBER'S informants could have
gotten away with anything. The totality of this continues to be further indicatiori
that the enforcement of narcotic laws was definitely not the purpose of WEBER'S
targeting of ANDREW SADEK. The young man's life was targeted to be nothing
more than a statistic.
Comparing DEFENDANTS' investigative actions, and/ or, lack: thereof to the
above investigative mandates reveals no interest whatsoever in SADEK, other
than just another arrest and informant statistic to be used to"Justify" the
continued receipt by DEFENDANTS offederal and other fundinq monies; the
totality of which continues to present ha ha elements ofprobable cause indicative
of a situ.ation of systemic, and/ or, endemic corruption, meriting referral to the
appropriate independent federal investigative agency for consideration of a
criminal investigation.
93
TRIAL" MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
94
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
roommate smokes marijuana and he was hesitant to tell me, but then
stated that he did. (p. 1-2, Item 50)
Before the 11/21/13 search, DEP WEBER then questions SADEK and his
roommate KIIIII about smoking marijuana, again, without a warrant,
without an arrest:
40. Case Report 13-092 by DEP WEBER dated 11/22/13
We all went back in to the room and I explained to KIii what was going
on and that we were there because of complaints of drug activity, I asked
K- if he knew what I was talking about and he stated that we [sic]
did. I asked both SA DEK and 1<111111 when the last time they used and
they stated about a week ago. (p. 2, Item 50)
Note: Item 40. WEBER) does not report asking any questions about SADEK
selling any quantities of marijuana in the past. Statements by the victim,
supported by his roommate, indicating that he had never sold marijuana prior to
meeting WEBERS team of informants would present yet additional evidence of
entrapment, and/ or, an informant "frame up." What is captured here is) at best,
the avoidance of "bad evidence," at worst) weather aiding and abetting his Cls
criminality,
SADEK and KIIIII then allegedly consent to a search of their dorm room:
41. Case Report 13-092 by DEP WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13
I asked them both if there was anything in the room that should not be
in the room. They both stated that there was not. I asked them both for
consent to search the room and they both agreed. (p.2, Item 50)
95
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY-- CONFIDENTIAL
DEP WEBER omits from his report that he spoke to SADEK for 10 minutes
alone, after~ was released by police to go to class:
43. Case Report 13-092 by DEP WEBER dated 11 /22/13
Officers left and SADEK was going to class. (p.2, Item 50)
DEP WEBER admits during his deposition that he spoke to SADEK for at
least 10 minutes after~ went to class:
44. DEP JASON WEBER Deposition dated 10/ 17 /17:
Q Did you make any other observations or obtain any other evidence
concerning marijuana use or sale involving Andrew SADEK between April
of 2013 and the time of searching his dorm in November of 2013?
A No. Our next contact was the dorm room search.
Q What led you to that situation of searching his dorm room?
A So, obviously we had these deals on Andrew. He had went home for the
summer. When he came back, we had went to his dorm room on
November 21st, myself and Officer Smykowski, and we went up to
Andrew's dorm. Andrew was in the room with his roommate. We end up
getting consent to search the dorm room where we found the orange
plastic marijuana grinder in a drawer that was Andrew SADEK's side of
the room. They had beds on both sides. It was a typical dorm room. Once
we found that, Andrew did admit that that was his grinder. At that point,
96
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
97
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
98
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
A I believe it was in the morning. I don't know the exact time. I don't know.
Sometime late morning I'm guessing.
Q When he showed up, what happened then?
A So when he showed up, he was brought in.to the interview room, and
immediately went into the recorded interview.
However, prior to 11/22/ 13, the day of the interrogation, he was 19 years old.
99
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE· SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
authority, and the unwarranted and brutal use offorce, albeit psychological, with
the reason.able likelihood of a violent death, as did happen.
100
TRIAL· MICHAEL LEVINE· SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
WEBER: Alright so, what I'm going to ask for you to do, is to do some buys
for me then. Where you'd have to wear a wire, you'd have to go buy
marijuana from individuals and then you know, dependent upon how you
do and so forth, you know, a lot of this could go away. You know, is it all
going to go away? Probably not. Are you gonna have to probably plead
guilty lo a misdemeanor, possession of marijuana? Probably, you know.
But at least you're not pleading guilty to felonies, Okay? Is that fair
enough?
SADEK: [nods affirmatively]
(audio, Item 6)
101
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
102
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
103
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
merits the urgent referral of this entire matter to the appropriate independent
federal Agency for criminal investigation.
WEBER continues to use threats to coerce the victim into accepting the
role of undercover criminal informant; also reveals that this type of
illegal, and/or, unethical activity is part of an ongoing pattern of SEMCA's
in general and WEBER'S in particular:
53. Interview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11/22/ 13
J-
WEBER: Okay. You don't know any football players on campus that sells
that you can buy from or anything?
SADEK: No. There was this guy last year, named that I bought
from a couple times.
WEBER: Okay. But he's not there anymore?
SADEK: Not sure, haven't contacted him.
WEBER: Well, we'll sign you up but its up to you to make your contacts
and we'll go from there. You know, you got two felonies hanging over
your head, so we're going to probably look at doing, each individual
we do we got need to get two deals on. So you 're going to have to do
two deals off per individual. And then we're probably going to be
looking for 3-4 individuals that you're going to have to do. Okay?
SADEK: Okay.
WEBER: Is that fair enough.
SADEK: [nods slightly]
WEBER: I mean, it sounds like you already got two for sure that you can
do and it's just a matter of doing two more.
SADEK: Alright.
(audio, Item 6)
104
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
WEBER attempts to coerce the victim into going after hard drugs, with
which the victim has little or no experience, which, again, is of no
concern to WEBER:
54. Interview of SAD EK by WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13
WEBER: Do you use anything other than marijuana? Have you tried
anything other than marijuana?
SADEK: Yeah.
WEBER: What have you tried?
SADEK: LSD.
WEBER: LSD? How did you like that?
SADEK: I didn't like it at all.
WEBER: Where did you get that at?
SADEK: From my buddy in Fargo.
WEBER: So you can buy LSD in Fargo. Or, can you buy anything other
than marijuana?
SADEK: [nods head negatively]
WEBER: Not saying that its for you but can you say that it's for a buddy?
SADEK: I could try.
WEBER: Okay.
(audio, Item 6)
105
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
WEBER continues to threaten SADEK with the pending charges and states
he will throw SADEK in jail if he loses contact with WEBER:
56. Interview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11 /22/ 13
WEBER: Do you understand that you are to report to me, who you are
assigned to work with you on a continuous basis while actively associated
with the Bureau of Criminal Investigation? You're going to have to check in
with me every so often, that we see fit. If you don't check in with me, or
if I lose contact with you, I'm just going to assume that you don't
want to work anymore and then I'mjust going to cut the warrants
106
MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
TRIAL -
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
for your arrest. And I'll throw you in jail. So you're gonna have to
keep, you know, not on a daily basis but every few days you're just check
in to say "hey, this is what I found out" or "I'm working on this" or "I
maybe got nothing" but you're going to have to check in with me and we'll
go over that when we're done. You understand that?
SADEK: Yes.
(Audio, Item 6)
107
TRIAL - MICHAEL LEVINE - SECURITY
CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY- CONFIDENTIAL
After telling SADEK he has to go through his contacts and set up the
buys, WEBER also tells SADEK he needs to identify the people he is
buying from for WEBER. WEBER is essentially instructing SADEK to do
his job for him, greatly increasing the likelihood of this young an
untrained College student being recognized as an informant along with
the equally likely violent results thereto:
58. Interview of SADEK by WEBER dated 11/22/ 13
WEBER: See what you can get lined up. Okay? And then the biggest thing
is about lining up deals, its up to you to kinda somewhat line them up.
But don't make anything definite.
SEDAK: Okay.
WEBER: The reason I say that is because we got 4 agents that I work with,
we are, you are not like the only CI, we are working with other people and
we work a big area. So if you call me up and go "hey I can do a deal in 5
minutes," I'm probably going to tell you no. Ain't gonna happen. You know
because I just can't get the rest of my guys around in 5 minutes, so on
and so forth. So the best way to do it is try to line something up and hey
like right now "hey you got some stuff, you know, can I come over?" And
try and line it up for 5 hours out. You know a good way is to text me in the
morning or the night before.
(22:20 minute marker, Item 6)
WEBER: The biggest thing to is when you do start if you don't know
these people, the biggest thing is to try and find out who these people
are that you are buying from too because you can't just buy from
people you don't know -
SEDAK: Fair enough. Ts there a certain amount that you want me to
purchase or do anything?
108