Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Laurezo

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

June 12, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JADE TIFFANY LAUREZO, Defendant.

          ORDER ADOPTING CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (the “PFRD”), (Doc. 68), filed May 2, 2019; Defendant Jade Tiffany Laurezo's Objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition Regarding Motion to Suppress Evidence (the “Objections”), (Doc. 71), filed May 16, 2019; and The United States' Response to Defendant's Objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition Regarding Motion to Suppress Evidence (the “Response”), (Doc. 79), filed May 31, 2019. In the PFRD, the Chief Magistrate Judge recommended that Ms. Laurezo's Motion to Suppress Evidence, (Doc. 26), be denied.

         The parties were informed that objections to the PFRD were due within fourteen days of the date the PFRD was filed. Id. at 19. Ms. Laurezo timely objected to the PFRD, (Doc. 71), and the Government timely responded to those objections, (Doc. 79). The Government did not object to the PFRD, and the time for doing so has passed. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 59(b)(2). Following a de novo review of the Motion to Suppress Evidence, PFRD, Objections, and Response, the Court will overrule the Objections, adopt the PFRD, and deny the Motion to Suppress Evidence.

         I. Background

         The facts of this case are detailed in the PFRD, which the Court incorporates by reference. The Court will briefly repeat the relevant facts here.

         On June 26, 2018, Detective Valderaz applied for and was granted a search warrant for 3809 Zinnia Road, Roswell, New Mexico. (Doc. 26 at 12); (Doc. 33-1). The affidavit in support of the search warrant set forth the following information: on March 27, 2018, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received a CyberTipline Report of three uploaded files of child pornography, linked to email address dayton66xx@gmail.com; on May 16, 2018, and May 29, 2018, Special Agent Owen Pena with the Office of the Attorney General of the New Mexico Investigation Division downloaded the sexually explicit materials from IP address 199.83.119.146; on June 18, 2018, Special Agent Pena received the requested subscriber information, listing an individual named Dain Adams as the registered owner of the IP address and linking the account's service address to 3809 Zinnia Road, Roswell, New Mexico; on June 22, 2018, Detective Raul L. Valderaz with the Criminal Investigation Division of the Chaves County Sheriff's Office travelled to 3809 Zinnia Road, observed a 2007 Toyota Pickup truck, and verified that Dain Adams was the registered owner of the truck. (Doc. 33-1 at 8-12).

         The search warrant for 3809 Zinnia Road authorized law enforcement officers to search the residence for:

All electronic data processing and storage devices, computers and computer systems including central processing units; internal and peripheral storage devices such as fixed disks, external hard disks, floppy disk drives and diskettes, tape drives and tapes, memory cards, USB thumb drives, optical storage devices or other memory storage devices; peripheral input/output devices such as keyboards, cameras, printers, video display monitors, optical readers and related communication devices such as modems; together with system documentation operating logs and documentation, software and instruction manuals, handwritten notes, logs, user names and lists. All images, video cassette tapes and/or motion pictures, which may contain any, unclothed and/or partially unclothed male and/or female children under the age of eighteen. All images, videocassette tapes and/or motion pictures portraying children under the age of eighteen engaged in sexual conduct or involved in lewd exhibition of the genitals. All images, photographs, film or negatives, which may contain unclothed and/or partially unclothed male and/or female children under the age of eighteen. All images, photographs, film or negatives which may contain children under the age of eighteen engaged in sexual conduct or involved in lewd exhibition of the genitals. All books, magazines, documents, advertisements portraying children under the age of eighteen engaged in sexual conduct, posed in sexually explicit positions or that contains unclothed or partially unclothed children under the age of eighteen. All documents tending to show occupancy and/or ownership for the home, including personal identification, bills, receipts, canceled mail, utility bills, rent receipts and bank statements. Photographs of the interior/exterior of the residence.

(Doc. 33-1 at 7).

         On June 27, 2018, Detective Valderaz executed the search warrant. Id. Inside the 3809 Zinnia Road residence, Detective Valderaz encountered Defendant Jade Tiffany Laurezo, later identified as Dain Adams' girlfriend, and Donnie and Marsha Roberson, Dain Adams' parents. (Doc. 55 at 6 ¶ 36). Detective Valderaz confirmed that Dain Adams lived at the address but was not present at that time. (Doc. 57 at 4). In the northwest bedroom, Detective Valderaz found multiple electronic devices, including a Samsung DUOS cellphone. Id.; (Doc. 26 at 12).

         After the search of the residence, Detective Valderaz obtained warrants to search each of the electronic items seized, including the Samsung DUOS cellphone. (Doc. 26 at 12). For the Samsung DUOS cellphone search warrant, Detective Valderaz submitted the same affidavit in support of the search warrant for the 3809 Zinnia Road residence, adding that he had executed the search warrant, confirmed that Dain Adams lived at the residence, and had seized multiple electronic devices from the home. (Doc. 55 at 6 ¶ 31). The warrant for the Samsung DUOS cellphone allowed law enforcement to search for the following information:

Forensic evaluation to obtain and identify all digital data from the phone that details communications; to include, but not limited to, call history, instant messages, emails, text messages and multi-media messages. Any call information regarding incoming and outgoing calls, any contact or phonebook information, and incoming and outgoing texts [sic] messages, any incoming or outgoing emails, any incoming or outgoing picture messages, any data contained on any media card inserted in the phone, any SIM cards inserted in the phone. Any images, videos, or sound recordings documenting the crime, or circumstances leading to the crime. Any information regarding the service provider for the cellular phone. Cell phone, S.D. cards, and SIMS will be forensically processed on site by Affiant or designee.

(Doc. 33-2 at 7). On July 3, 2018, Detective Valderaz searched the Samsung DUOS cellphone and discovered two videos featuring an adult female engaging in sexually explicit conduct with one male child between the ages of four and six years old. (Doc. 1 at 6-7). The adult female was later identified as Defendant Jade Tiffany Laurezo and the male child was identified as her son. (Doc. 55 at 7 ¶ 46). Ms. Laurezo now moves to suppress the evidence seized from the 3809 Zinnia Road residence and from the search of her Samsung DUOS cellphone. (Doc. 26).

         In the PFRD, the Chief Magistrate Judge found: (1) sufficient probable cause supported both of the search warrants, (Doc. 68 at 8-12); (2) the search warrants were not overly broad, id. at 12-17; and (3) law enforcement did not materially omit evidence from the search warrant for the Samsung DUOS cellphone in violation of Franks v. Delaware, id. at 17-19. Therefore, the Chief Magistrate Judge found no Fourth Amendment violations and recommended Ms. Laurezo's Motion to Suppress Evidence be denied. Id. at 19. In her Objections, Ms. Laurezo argues the Chief Magistrate Judge omitted several relevant factual findings and erred in finding the search warrants were supported by probable cause and were not overly broad. (Doc. 71 at 1-20).

         II. Analysis

         When resolving objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the district judge must make a de novo determination regarding any part of the recommendation to which a party has properly objected. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(3). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation, receive further evidence, or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. Objections must be timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., With Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Additionally, issues “raised for the first time in objections to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.