United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Compel Discovery Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(a)(1)(E)(i) and
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), filed January
24, 2018 (Doc. 36). Having considered the
parties' written arguments and applicable law, the Court
finds that Defendant's motion is not well-taken and,
therefore, is DENIED.
August 22, 2017, Defendant was indicted with
unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally possess[ing] with
intent to distribute a controlled substance, 1 kilogram and
more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of heroin. In violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A).
Doc. 12. Neither party describes the facts
in the motion or response. It appears that on August 4, 2017,
Defendant was arrested by DEA Agent Jarrell Perry, after
exiting a Greyhound bus at the downtown Albuquerque Greyhound
station. Doc. 25. Agent Perry discovered
heroin inside Defendant's handbag, after an allegedly
Motion, Defendant requests the following discovery:
a) Any and all material and witnesses Special Agent Perry, or
his partner, Agent Pantoja, relied upon, consulted, or
otherwise considered in identifying Ms. Ramos-Burciaga as a
target of investigation.
b) Any and all information regarding any investigation,
information sharing, research, or other data gathering
involving Ms. Ramos-Burciaga that preceded the audio-recorded
encounter with Special Agent Perry.
c) Any and all information regarding any inspection, search,
or screening by the government, or at the behest of the
government, of Ms. Ramos-Burciaga's luggage or personal
effects, conducted prior to the audio-recorded encounter with
d) The audio-recording of each of Special Agent Perry's
other civilian encounters that day that preceded his
encounter with Ms. Ramos-Burciaga.
e) The recording of Agent Pantoja's interaction with Ms.
Ramos-Burciaga. Agent Pantoja is referred to as Special Agent
f) The recording of each of Agent Pantoja's other
civilian encounters that day that preceded his encounter with
Doc. 36, p.2. Defendant argues that Agent
Perry practiced “parallel construction” and used
other sources of information not disclosed to target her.
Defendant asserts that the above evidence could be material
or exculpatory, because it could bear on whether Agent
Perry's search was constitutional. Defendant requests
that the government put on the record whether any parallel