Growing up my favorite player was Alexei Kovalev. He was number 27, so I decided to be number Ryan said that his favorite part of hockey is the team aspect.
He was able to meet some of his best friends through hockey. When deciding his schools, Ryan had two schools in mind.
When I found out that Delaware was going to have a Division 2 team, it was kind of a safety net. Ryan ended up on the Division 2 team freshman year. He called it a positive experience that helped him improve. He would make the team his sophomore year. There, he was able to learn from players who had already won a National Championship; what it took to win on the Division 1 level.
I just remember being in the locker room before it started, I could hear the people in the stands going crazy and it was just awesome. The district court concluded that Defendant failed to demonstrate that the affidavit contained intentionally false or misleading statements and, therefore, he was not entitled to a Franks v. Delaware , U.
On August 11, , the court issued written orders denying both motions. On September 21, , Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to Counts One, Two, and Three of the indictment without a plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 a 2 , which reserved his right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination on any pretrial motion filed in the matter.
On January 26, , the district court sentenced Defendant to months on Counts One and Three to run concurrently and sentenced Defendant to 60 months on Count Two to run consecutively to the sentences on Counts One and Three. On January 26, , Defendant filed his timely notice of appeal.
Elsey, an investigator with the Ohio State Highway Patrol's Office of Criminal Investigations, who was also serving concurrently on the DEA's Task Force and working with Agent Costanzo on the investigation into Defendant, submitted a state application and affidavit to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas for phone records associated with a particular telephone number xxx yyy-zzzz. In the affidavit, Trooper Elsey listed four prior arrests of Defendant, including a arrest for felony drug trafficking, a arrest for possession of cocaine, a arrest for felony possession of drugs, and a arrest for felony drug trafficking.
The state affiant then stated that, beginning in February , "a confidential source informed investigators [Defendant] was actively involved in trafficking kilogram quantities of cocaine" and that a "separate confidential source also informed investigators [Defendant] was actively involved in trafficking kilogram quantities of cocaine.
The second informant "provided [ xxx yyy-zzzz] as a telephone number utilized by [Defendant] in furtherance of his illegal narcotics trafficking activities. The state affiant further stated that "physical surveillance conducted by investigators corroborated the information provided by the two confidential sources regarding [Defendant]'s involvement in trafficking cocaine.
Trooper Elsey lastly noted that on March 19, , "investigators received the responsive records for a subpoena issued to T-Mobile US," which provided that "the account to which [ xxx yyy-zzzz] is linked is in the name of "William J. On March 24, , Defendant agreed to sell one and one-half kilograms of cocaine to a confidential informant working with the DEA.
The drug transaction was arranged to occur at Defendant's residence on Tudor Road in Columbus, Ohio "residence". That same day, a federal magistrate judge authorized a search warrant "Search Warrant" or "federal search warrant" , which was promptly executed at the residence. The affidavit underlying the federal search warrant contained information from two confidential informants who purchased cocaine from Defendant or who knew Defendant to be a kilogram dealer of cocaine. When law enforcement arrived at the residence, they observed Defendant flee through the back of the residence.
Defendant was detained after a brief foot pursuit and placed in the back of a law enforcement agent's vehicle while the agents searched the residence. Defendant told CFD that he is diabetic and takes daily medication to control his blood sugar. Defendant told CFD that he had recently eaten and taken insulin prior to the agents' arrival. Defendant claimed that his blood sugar dropped after he ran from his residence and vomited, so CFD gave Defendant oral glucose to stabilize his blood sugar.
While off Norfolk, a catapult launch off Independence CVA ruptures an F-4B Phantom fighter's detachable fuel tank, spilling and igniting 4, gallons of jet fuel. Smith, Feibleman, E. Winters killed. Bartlett, VVm. Fitzgerald, Patrick, Paper-maker. Settle died from a non-hostile motor vehicle accident in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. He manages external counsel and ensures that his client always gets sophisticated, but practical, advice.
The report filed by CFD indicated that shortly after they administered the oral glucose, Defendant's blood sugar was , his breath was non-labored and circulation was normal, and he was oriented. CFD further reported that Defendant said to them that he was "OK" and that his blood sugar dropped due to the unexpected run. Before we ask you any questions, you must understand: - You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand? Are you willing to answer some questions? Defendant responded that he understood and that he was willing to answer some questions. Agent Costanzo later testified at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress Statements that Defendant, at this point, appeared calm, coherent, cooperative, and responsive, and did not seem to be in any sort of physical discomfort.
During the interrogation, Defendant effectively admitted to ownership of the cocaine, the cocaine press, and the firearms located inside the residence. When the agents asked him about the locations of the items in the residence, Defendant "offered to show us where those items were inside the house. Hr'g Tr. Agent Costanzo testified that throughout the questioning and the walk-through of the residence, Defendant did not appear to be in any physical discomfort, aside from the handcuffs, and that he maintained this demeanor the entire time.
After Defendant and the agents exited the residence, the agents asked him where "the cocaine c[a]me from. Defendant suddenly became hostile and upset, and appeared to be offended. Defendant then stated that he wanted an attorney. Agent Costanzo testified that he believed Defendant's demeanor changed when the agents started to ask questions concerning Defendant's supplier.
However, Defendant testified that his demeanor changed because his "blood sugar had c[o]me up and [he] [ ] kn[e]w[ ]" what was going on at that point. Defendant stated that he went into hypoglycemic shock after he ran and vomited outside the patrol vehicle, and that he was confused, disoriented, not aware of his surroundings, and in a "dream-like" state during the questioning and residence walk-through. Defendant testified that he did not remember being read his Miranda v. Arizona , U. The Search Warrant resulted in the seizure of 1, grams of cocaine, eleven firearms, including semi-automatic handguns, revolvers, and a shotgun, and other items usually associated with drug trafficking, such as heat sealer bags, a cocaine press, a kilogram wrapper, and digital scales.
On appeal, Defendant challenges the district court's denial of the motions to suppress the evidence seized from the residence and the statements he made to law enforcement regarding his ownership of the evidence seized from the residence.
Defendant argues that the district court erred in determining that the state affidavit underlying the application authorizing a search of his phone records was supported by probable cause. Defendant also argues that the district court erred in determining that he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. Defendant first argues that the state affidavit lacked probable cause because: 1 it contained misleading statements concerning Defendant's prior arrest history; 2 it implied that those prior arrests all resulted in felony convictions; and 3 it lacked information concerning the credibility of the confidential informants who assisted the government in the search warrant process.
Specifically, Defendant argues that the district court erred in denying a Franks hearing because the state affidavit contained misleading statements about Defendant's prior arrest history and the confidential informant's information was not corroborated. Defendant contends that the state affiant misstated Defendant's prior state arrest history because he listed four arrests for felony offenses even though two of the arrests were for the same offense, and one of the felony arrests resulted in a misdemeanor conviction, not a felony conviction.
Defendant maintains that these misstatements resulted in a "recklessly false affidavit. This Court has described the standards applicable to review of the denial of a motion to suppress as follows:. Whether a search warrant affidavit establishes probable cause to conduct the search is a legal question that this Court reviews de novo. United States v. Frazier , F. In reviewing a magistrate's decision to issue a warrant, the Court must accord the magistrate's determination 'great deference.
Allen , F. Brooks , F. Martin , F. Likewise, when reviewing a district court's decision on a motion to suppress, the Court reviews the lower court's findings of fact for clear error.
Lyons , F. Howard , F. A factual finding is clearly erroneous when a court, on reviewing the evidence, "is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Navarro-Camacho , F. Because the district court denied Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, this Court reviews all evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Long , F. Similarly, when reviewing the district court's denial of a Franks hearing, this Court reviews findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo.
Pirosko , F. Rose , F. The Constitution's Fourth Amendment provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. A "state search warrant being challenged in federal court must be judged by federal constitutional standards. McManus , F. United States , U. King , F. Bennett , F. In assessing whether a warrant to search a residence passes muster under the Fourth Amendment, the "critical element.
Stanford Daily , U. Church , F. Berry , F. Gates , U. Penitentiary v. Hayden , U. A "police request to search for illegal drugs therefore needs to satisfy only the second showing for a valid warrant: 'a fair probability' that the drugs 'will be found in a particular place.
Pinson , F. The Court does not consider "recklessly and materially false statements" in the affidavit that have been properly stricken during a Franks hearing. See United States v. Elkins , F. These allegations must be more than conclusory and must be accompanied with an offer of proof, and if this is satisfied, "then the question becomes whether, absent the challenged statements, there remains sufficient content in the affidavit to support a finding of probable cause. There is even "a higher bar for obtaining a Franks hearing on the basis of an allegedly material omission as opposed to an allegedly false affirmative statement.
Fowler , F.
Here, the district court found that Defendant failed to make the necessary substantial showing. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant failed to make the necessary substantial preliminary showing. First, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the arrest history was an actual misstatement of his arrest record.
In fact, Defendant's counsel stated at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress Evidence that the affiant's portrayal of Defendant's arrest record was correct. Defendant's counsel answered in the affirmative when the court asked him whether he "would agree that the affidavit list[ed] - the state court affidavit list[ed] four arrests; and you would agree that there were, technically, to use your word, four arrests; however, they may have been re-arrests on a same charge.
Second, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the affidavit misstated the outcomes of the arrests. At the hearing, the district court asked Defendant's counsel whether "there was [any]thing in the affidavit that indicated a felony conviction when it shouldn't have indicated a felony conviction[. Defendant's counsel responded "[n]o," the affidavit did not indicate a felony conviction when it should not have indicated one.
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff-Below Appellee. Corporal Hopkins inquired whether "Ryan Pate was there at the apartment. When Appellant asked why she was being arrested, the officer told Appellant that she would. Mrs. Pate called her husband, Ryan, to confront him. Although a police report referred to May 16, , the record does not support Dahl's assertion on appeal .
However, Defendant's counsel then went on to state that part of his argument is that "[i]t's misleading to list [an arrest for a felony offense] when you know somebody was convicted of a misdemeanor, to put it in an affidavit [that] they were arrested on a felony trafficking-in-drugs, when you know it's a misdemeanor, couple of bags of marijuana.
Defendant's argument would essentially require an affiant to investigate the resolution of the defendant's prior arrests and present that research to the magistrate judge. This requirement is contrary to this Court's view that "[a]n affiant cannot be expected to include in an affidavit every piece of information gathered in the course of an investigation. City of Dayton , F.