Phone Evidence Not Allowed to be Used in NJ Drug Trafficking Case

Phone conversations and text messages captured by wiring tapping in a drug trafficking case in New Jersey will not be allowed as evidence, ruled a state appellate court recently. The accused drug traffickers are a married couple that allegedly ran a drug distribution network. The recorded conversations were ruled by an appellate judge to be privileged communications between a husband and wife, and thus not admissible as evidence in the trial.

Click the link below to read more on this case, and the prosecutor’s reaction to the court’s decision.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57585564-504083/married-couple-protected-against-wiretaps-in-…

If you find yourself accused of a drug trafficking or narcotics offense, call the Law Offices of John L. Calcagni, III to learn about your options. Mr. Calcagni is an experienced federal criminal defense attorney serving New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Call his office at 401-351-5100 for a free telephone consultation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case or visit our website at www,CalcagniLaw.com

If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Large Scale Drug Trafficker Who Faced Possible 40-Year Sentence Released on Time Served After Spending 17 Months in Jail.

A man believed to be associated with an international drug trafficking organization was apprehended in connection with a seizure of more than 650 pounds of marijuana.  He was then charged by federal authorities for being part of a drug conspiracy.  The man faced a possible sentence of 40 years in jail.  However, after retaining Attorney John L. Calcagni III, he received a remarkable sentence of time served after spending only 17 months in jail. 

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Task Force (TF) comprised of local and federal law enforcement agents conducted a long term investigation regarding a known drug trafficker (hereinafter “KDT”).  KDT was previously convicted of cocaine-related charges some time ago.  He served a jail sentence and had since been released.  TF agents began watching him closely again based on suspicions that he had returned to selling drugs.

In March 2011, agents conducted surveillance of KDT.  They followed him from his home to a mall in Providence, RI.  KDT traveled there in his personal vehicle accompanied by a second unidentified Hispanic male.  Upon arriving at the mall, agents observed a third unidentified man get into the known trafficker’s vehicle (hereinafter “Mr. X”).  The three men then returned to KDT’s apartment.  Sometime later, agents observed KDT depart from his apartment accompanied by two additional Hispanic males.  The three men traveled to a truck rental agency and rented a commercial box truck.  The men then returned to KDT’s apartment – KDT and one unidentified male were in KDT’s vehicle and the second unidentified male (third male in total) operated the box truck. 

Approximately one hour later, agents observed Mr. X emerge from KDT’s apartment and enter the box truck.  He proceeded onto the interstate highway and traveled several miles to a roadside hotel.  Mr. X exited the box truck and walked into the hotel.  Less than one hour later, Mr. X emerged from the hotel with two additional unidentified males (hereinafter “Mr. Y” and “Mr. Z”).  The three men entered the box truck with Mr. X as driver.  The three men proceeded back onto the interstate in the opposite direction from which Mr. X had come.  They got off the highway several miles away and drove into the parking lot of a Home Depot Store.  They then exited the truck and went into the store.   Once inside, agents observed Mr. X purchase two pairs of work gloves.  After this purchase, the men got back into the box truck, this time with Mr. Y driving, and drove down the roadway.  At this time, Mr. X sat in the middle and Mr. Z sat in the passenger seat.  About one mile down the road, the box truck came to a stop.  Mr. X exited the truck at an intersection and proceeded to walk into a nearby donut shop.  Mr. Y and Mr. Z drove off in the box truck and traveled several miles to a commercial shipping depot.  Upon arrival, the box truck proceeded into the shipping depot’s parking lot and drove around to the back of the warehouse, presumably to a loading dock.  Law enforcement agents performing surveillance of these events lost sight of the vehicle for approximately 15 minutes. 

After several minutes, the box truck emerged again and departed from the shipping depot.  Law enforcement agents on surveillance radioed for the assistance of uniformed patrol officers after concluding that the box truck had likely picked up a large shipment of drugs at the depot.  The lead agent of this investigation advised the patrol officers to find probable cause required to conduct  a traffic stop and to in fact stop the box truck.  The lead agent also radioed for the assistance of a K9 drug detection dog to come on scene after the truck was stopped.  Moments after leaving the shipping depot, and only a few miles down the road, a uniformed officer stopped the truck on the basis that it allegedly “failed to use a turn signal while turning.”  The truck pulled over without incident and into a residential driveway.

Once the truck came to a stop, the uniformed officer approached the driver’s side.  The driver, Mr. Y, emerged and encountered the patrol officer.  Mr. Z, who the uniformed officer did not notice at first, quietly exited the passenger side while the officer was tending to the driver.  He then ran several yards away from the scene and entered a gas station convenience store.  Undercover agents on surveillance observed Mr. Z’s actions and apprehended him in the gas station.  The patrol officer who stopped the vehicle ultimately placed Mr. Y under arrest, as he was operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license. 

While the box truck was secured and before the K9 arrived, TF agents located Mr. X who was sitting in the nearby donut shop while sipping coffee and eating a donut.  Agents then radioed for the assistance of additional uniformed officers, who they advised that Mr. X was wanted for questioning in connection with an ongoing investigation.   According to independent witnesses, the uniformed officers surrounded the donut shop and entered it with their weapons drawn.  As they stepped through the door, one of the officers loudly announced “put your hands up” and “don’t move.”  Another officer immediately proceeded to handcuff and detain Mr. X, who was then secured in the backseat of a police cruiser and whisked away to a nearby police station.

A K9 officer and his drug detection dog arrived on scene after all three men (Mr. X, Y and Z) were taken into custody.  The K9 officer released his dog and gave it a command to search for drugs in the rear compartment of the box truck.  The compartment contained two large pallets piled high with plastic crates that were wrapped in cellophane.  The pallets had shipping labels indicating they initiated from San Diego, CA.  The K9 dog entered the truck compartment and alerted to the presence of drugs inside the crates.    Officers then secured the truck and transported it to a nearby, secret evidence collection warehouse for further analysis.  The TF agents dismantled the pallets and opened the separate plastic crates stored thereon.  Each crate contained a cardboard box and two vacuumed sealed bundles of marijuana.  In total, the officers discovered 12 crates and boxes and 24 bundles of marijuana that weighed in total more than 655 pounds. 

The discovery of the marijuana formed the basis of federal criminal charges against the men, including Mr. X, for engaging in a drug conspiracy.  Specifically, the federal government through theU.S. Attorney’s office charged Mr. X with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Possess and Distribute More than 250 Kilograms of Marijuana, and Possession with Intent to Distribute More than 250 Kilograms of Marijuana.  These charges carried a mandatory minimum jail sentence of five (5) years and a potential maximum sentence of (40) years.  Mr. X was arraigned on these charges. Because of the nature of the drug charges and potential exposure on sentencing, he was held without bail. 

On the day of his arrest, Mr. X left his home and family, including his wife and then 8-month old daughter, in their San Diego, CA apartment.   He boarded a flight bound for Boston, MA and had every intention of returning within a few days.  To his surprise, he was arrested by federal authorities, charged with federal drug offenses, and held without bail.  When Mr. X’s wife learned of her husband’s circumstances, she immediately boarded a flight to the east coast.  Upon arrival, she began researching criminal defense lawyers who she thought could help her husband.  She sought an attorney who specialized in criminal defense, was well-known in the New England area, had extensive trial and federal court experience, and was honest, ethical and reliable.  She ultimately retained the services of Attorney John L. Calcagni III to represent Mr. X.

Attorney Calcagni outlined a strategy to defend Mr. X that first involved filing a motion to challenge his arrest and to suppress items discovered on his person, including multiple cell phones and a plane ticket that showed he flew to Boston from San Diego – the same place from where the pallets of marijuana originated.  Attorney Calcagni filed the motion alleging the Mr. X was unlawfully arrested in the absence of probable cause – i.e. there was no factual basis to believe a crime had been committed.  The government objected to this motion and the Court held an evidentiary hearing.  Though the Court agreed with Attorney Calcagni’s assertion that Mr. X was arrested in the absence of probable cause, the Court upheld the arrest on alternative grounds, thereby saving the government’s case against Mr. X from dismissal.  Attorney Calcagni’s next step in defending Mr. X was to negotiate a pretrial agreement after his client decided to plead guilty.  Attorney Calcagni negotiated an agreement that permitted Mr. X to plead to one count of engaging in a drug conspiracy in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts regarding Possession with Intent to Distribute More than 250 Kilograms of Marijuana.  The pretrial agreement also enabled Attorney Calcagni to argue at sentencing for less than the mandatory minimum jail sentence of five (5) years.

After Mr. X’s guilty plea was accepted by the Court, Attorney Calcagni shifted focus to one area of federal criminal practice that he masters – sentencing preparation.  He began by traveling to Tijuana, Mexico, where Mr. X was born, in order to spend time with his client’s family.  Attorney Calcagni flew from Providence, RI to San Diego, CA and crossed the United States / Mexico border on foot to Tijuana.  He then traveled to the neighborhood where Mr. X’s family resides, including his wife and young daughter. After Mr. X’s arrest, his wife and daughter were forced to leave their San Diego apartment and reside with other relatives in poverty stricken Tijuana.  Attorney Calcagni met with and interviewed his client’s family members, obtaining character statements and letters of support from them on Mr. X’s behalf for the Court’s consideration at Mr. X’s sentencing. 

Attorney Calcagni documented with photographs their homes, living conditions, and the neighborhood along the border where Mr. X grew up as a child.  After returning from Mexico, Attorney Calcagni spent time preparing Mr. X for sentencing.  This included drafting a letter by Mr. X to the Court accepting responsibility for his actions and documenting his self-rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated awaiting sentencing, such as working in the prison kitchen, attending weekly classes in U.S. History, and going to mental health counseling.  Attorney Calcagni lastly memorialized all of his sentencing efforts by drafting and submitting to the Court an important legal document called a sentencing memorandum.  This important document is submitted to the Court by both the defense and the government, outlining their respective sentencing arguments and punishment requests.

The final stage of Attorney Calcagni’s representation of Mr. X was at his sentencing hearing.  The government recommended to the Court that Mr. X receive a prolonged jail sentence.  In support of its request, government lawyers emphasized the quantity of marijuana seized by TF agents, its high street value, and Mr. X’s membership in a sophisticated large drug trafficking organization that had the resources, knowledge and client base to coordinate the cross-country transportation of large quantities of marijuana.  In response, Attorney Calcagni retorted that a prolonged or further jail sentence of Mr. X was unnecessary.   He cited persuasive facts, such as that Mr. X was a first-time offender and he played a minimal role in the charged misconduct in that he was not even found to be in possession of the drugs or in the truck that contained them when it was stopped by police.  Attorney Calcagni also argued that Mr. X had accepted responsibility and had engaged in multiple self-rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated. 

Lastly, and perhaps most persuasively, he showed the Court Mr. X’s family.  Attorney Calcagni showed the Court the family’s dangerous and poverty stricken living conditions in Tijuana. He showed the Court how Mr. X came from those same conditions and will return to them once released.  Attorney Calcagni also showed the Court that, while incarcerated, Mr. X had missed 17 months of his now 2 year-old daughter’s life.  Attorney Calcagni emphasized that the collateral punishment of missing his young daughter’s two birthdays, multiple holidays and countless “first time moments” were more punitive to a father than any jail sentence the Court could impose.  At the end of the hearing, the Court sided with Attorney Calcagni by sentencing Mr. X to time served (17 months) and a period of supervised release.  Congratulations to Mr. X on this exceptional result.

Operating Under the Influence Case Results

If you are facing charges for OUI, Drug Possession, or any kind of Sexual Assault crime, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for assistance and a free consultation.

OUI 2nd for Alcohol; OUI for Drugs; and Annoying a Person of the Opposite Sex: OUI First-Offender Sanctions Imposed and All Other Charges Dismissed. 

Police received a report of a motorist following a city garbage truck during the early morning hours.  The report indicated that the motorist was believed to be intoxicated and was soliciting a female garbage trucker worker to perform a sexual act on him.   Police arrived on the scene and stopped the motorist.  At the time of the stop, officers detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the motorist, as well as observed him to have both blood shot eyes and slurred speech.   During a discussion with the motorist, he admitted to having consumed several beers earlier in the night and appeared to be disoriented.  Officers administered a battery of field sobriety tests to the motorists all of which he failed.  Officers than placed the motorist under arrest and transported to the police station.  He then participated in a breathalyzer test that measured his BAC to be .24 –three times the legal limit of .08.  During the booking process, officers discovered a bottle of narcotic mediation on the motorist’s person person.   As a result of the foregoing, police charged the motorist with Operating under the Influence (OUI) of Alcohol (2nd Offense); OUI of Narcotics; and Annoying a Person of the Opposite Sex.  Attorney Calcagni represented the motorist.  At a pretrial conference, Attorney Calcagni successfully negotiated to have the OUI for Narcotics and Annoying a Person of the Opposite Sex charges dismissed.  Attorney Calcagni further negotiated for the motorist to be treated as a first-time offender for purposes of the OUI of Alcohol charge.  The motorist was then sentenced to a Continuation without Finding for twenty-four (24) months with minimum first-time OUI offender sanctions.  Providing the motorist is not charged with a new offense during this period, his case will be dismissed in two years and he will not incur a criminal conviction from this incident. 

Motion to Suppress Drugs Case Result

If you have been charged with a drug related offense in RI, MA or on a Federal level, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a consultation now.

Motion to Suppress Drugs Granted and Case Dismissed 

October 2011

A man was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana and a Drug School Zone Violation, which makes it unlawful to possess drugs within 1000 feet of a school or 100 feet of a park.  These charges stemmed from the search of the man’s car by police, which uncovered a substantial quantity of marijuana from inside the automobile.  An undercover police officer, driving an unmarked police cruiser, drove into the parking lot of a neighborhood park during the daytime.  The officer observed a man sitting alone inside his vehicle.  There was no one else present in the park.  The officer did not observe any drug or other unlawful activity.  The officer also did not recognize or otherwise know the man.  The officer used a pair of binoculars to get a closer look at the man.  He specifically observed the man sitting in the driver’s seat of his car looking into his lap.  He then saw what he believed to be the man licking a marijuana cigar or blunt.  The officer immediately drove his unmarked cruiser next to the man’s car so that the driver’s side doors of each car were aligned.  As the officer pulled up, he observed loose tobacco on the ground outside of the man’s car, which the officer, based upon his training and experience, understood to be from a lawful cigar the man had emptied in order to roll a marijuana cigar or blunt.  The officer made no other observations or detected the odor of marijuana.  Based on his limited observations, the officer unilaterally opened the man’s car door; grabbed the apparent cigar from the man’s hand; and physically removed from his vehicle.  The officer then proceeded to search inside the passenger compartment where he discovered multiple bags of marijuana of varying quantities.  The officer then arrested the man and charged him with various drug offenses.  Attorney Calcagni was tasked with representing the man, who was a first-time offender.

In defense of the man, Attorney Calcagni sought to challenge the legality of the police conduct by filing a suppression motion.  The motion challenged the officer’s conduct of opening the man’s car door; grabbing an object from the man’s hand; physically removed the man from his vehicle; and searching inside.  The thrust of this argument was that the police violated the man’s 4th amendment right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.  If successful, the motion asked the Court to suppress as evidence against the man the drugs discovered by police in his vehicle.  The Court conducted a hearing on the defense motion.  After the hearing, the Court agreed with Attorney Calcagni that the man’s rights were violated.  As a remedy for this violation, the Court suppressed the discovered marijuana.  As a result of this favorable pretrial ruling, all charges against the man will soon be dismissed for lack of evidence. Ultimately, this client avoided a mandatory jail sentence associated with the drug charges and will not sustain a criminal record from this incident.