Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Case Digests / WDNY — Suppression of Physical Evidence: United States v. Ahmad

WDNY — Suppression of Physical Evidence: United States v. Ahmad

U.S. District Court, WDNY

Suppression of Physical Evidence

Suppression of Statements — Legal Sufficiency

United States v. Ahmad
11-CR-6130L
Magistrate Payson

Background: The defendant was charged with inducing, enticing and coercing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing child pornography and for the possession of child pornography. The defendant moved to suppress statements he made to law enforcement at the time of his arrest, as well as evidence seized pursuant to two search warrants. He also moved to suppress the indictment for legal insufficiency for failing to allege the manner in which he engaged in the proscribed conduct, as well as failing to allege how the camera was mailed, shipped or transported in interstate commerce.

Ruling: The magistrate recommended that the part of the defendant’s motion challenging sufficiency should be denied as all that is required in an indictment is that it “track the language of the applicable statute.” With respect to the seizures, the magistrate found that even if a search warrant affidavit included evidence seized during an illegal search, it did not taint any evidence seized as a result of the warrant. Moreover, the defendant failed to show prejudice from a search warrant executed four days past its expiration date. The evidence was in police custody at the time the warrant was executed and such execution was based upon the mistaken belief that the federal officer still had time to execute the warrant. Finally, the magistrate recommended that statements made while in a patrol car constituted a custodial interrogation and must be suppressed as the defendant was not apprised of his Miranda rights. However, his statements made while at the police station should not be suppressed as he was fully informed of his Miranda rights.

Adrian J. Burke of Burke and Burke, and Maroun G. Ajaka for the defendant; Tiffany H. Lee of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the plaintiff