United States v. Olmedo » The Florida E-Discovery Case Law Database » Levin College of Law » University of Florida

United States v. Olmedo

United States v. Olmedo

Case Date: 04/28/2008
Citation: United States v. Olmedo, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2008)
Court Type: Federal District
Court: Southern District of Florida (S.D. Fla.)
Judge: Federal Magistrate Judge: Edwin G. Torres
Rule(s): 4th Amendment

Defendant moved to suppress the fruits of an illegal search, stating probable cause could not be imputed to agents that did not conduct the actual search. Additionally, Defendant moved to suppress wiretap evidence obtained from his cell phone, alleging the government did not show necessity for the wiretap, that the government failed to minimize the intercepted conversations, and that the wiretap affidavits contained intentional omissions.


The Magistrate recommended that Defendant’s motions be denied. With respect to Defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of an illegal search, the Court stated that Defendant’s collective knowledge claim was without merit, as the agents involved in the investigation communicated with each other and allowed for probable cause to be imputed between them. On Defendant’s motion to suppress wiretap evidence, the Court stated the necessity requirement was sufficiently met, as officers could not fully establish the scope and membership of the organization being monitored.¬†Moreover, the Magistrate found that the government had complied with minimization requirements, as Defendant did not allege any particular conversation that the government did not minimize, and because circumstances warranted a wiretap to uncover the widespread network. Finally, with respect to intentional omissions, the Court held that Defendant failed to identify any omissions.

Relevant Documents:

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Fruits of Illegal Search and Seizure (Doc. 320)

Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 362)

Post-Hearing Reply to Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 419)

Government’s Response to Post-Hearing Reply to Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 422)¬†

*Order Not Available

E-Discovery Issues: Admissibility, Motion to Suppress
E-discovery Tags: Privacy, Real Time Cell Phone Information
E-discovery subjects: Cell phone, Pen register, Trap and trace device

Published: March 21st, 2018

Category: Uncategorized

Comments are closed.