U.S. v. Tzimopoulos CR.95-01-JD 08/30/95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 95-01-03-JD

Georgia Tzimopoulos, et al.

O R D E R

Currently before the court is defendant Georgia

Tzimopoulos's motion to suppress (document no. 72) all evidence

seized at her residence when law enforcement officers executed a

search warrant issued by a New Hampshire state court judge. For

the following reasons the motion is denied.

Background

On December 9, 1994, the New Hampshire State Police ("NHSP")

obtained a warrant authorizing the search of the residence of

defendants Tzimopoulos and Paul Loukedes, located at 14A Pheasant

Run, Pembroke, NH. The affiant. Corporal Michael H. Hambrook,

stated the following to establish probable cause to believe that

evidence of a crime in violation of

-

B:2 would be found in the possession of Loukedes and Tzimopoulos

at their residence in Pembroke, New Hampshire.

On May 11, 1992, Loukedes was arrested by the Phoenix,

Arizona Police Department and charged with importation of marijuana. At the time of his arrest Loukedes had on his person

$11,600 in cash and a small amount of marijuana. Loukedes had

just arrived on an airplane from Boston and was traveling under

the alias name of Rob Anderson.

On May 19, 1994, David and Debbie Carreau of Goffstown, New

Hampshire, were shot and killed in their home. The double

homicide was investigated by the NHSP and Goffstown Police

Department. According to investigative reports prepared by

troopers assigned to the State Police Major Crimes Unit, David

Carreau was a marijuana dealer who was being supplied his

marijuana by Paul Loukedes. In addition to these reports, a

rolodex found at the Carreau residence listed the numerous

telephone numbers of Loukedes and Tzimopoulos, who is known to be

Loukedes' girlfriend.

On April 7, 1994, and again on several other occasions,

Hambrook interviewed a confidential informant ("CI1"), acguainted

with Loukedes and known to be reliable. According to CI1,

Loukedes is a major marijuana dealer whose drug sources are

located in Arizona and California. CI1 had purchased marijuana

from Loukedes and believed Tzimopoulos to be involved in

Loukedes' drug business, possibly receiving a percentage of the

profits. CI1 said Loukedes has a nickname of "LL," which stands

for "Lots of Lies" and a beeper number of 771-0155. CI1 further

2 stated that Loukedes lost a load of marijuana at an airport in

New York City when a runner named Aaron Goodwin was arrested with

approximately fifty pounds of marijuana flown into New York from

California. Loukedes and Tzimopoulos were at the airport to meet

Goodwin at the time Goodwin was arrested.

Criminal reports from The New York Port Authority show that

Goodwin was arrested on January 4, 1994, at the JFK Airport in

New York with approximately fifty pounds of marijuana.

On February 8, 1994, NHSP Trooper Chris Scott arrested

Loukedes on route 1-93 in Campton, New Hampshire, for possessing

a small quantity of marijuana. Loukedes was later convicted of

this offense.

On May 4, 1994, Hambrook sent CI1 to meet with Loukedes.

CI1 was searched and his vehicle checked to ensure he did not

have any drugs or money. CI1 was followed and observed meeting

with Loukedes, Tzimopoulos and Chris McGuire. After the meeting,

CI1 gave Hambrook a small sample of marijuana given to him by

Loukedes.

NHSP Sergeant James Noyes met with CI1 on August 2, 1994,

and checked him and his vehicle for drugs and money. CI1 was

then sent to a meeting with Loukedes and McGuire. After the

meeting, CI1 gave Noyes a substance represented as a small amount

3 of marijuana received from Loukedes. The substance was later

analyzed and found to contain .073 grams of marijuana.

On December 1, 1994, Hambrook met with a second confidential

informant ("CI2"). CI2 gave extensive information concerning

drug activities in the Manchester, New Hampshire, area. The

information provided by CI2 was corroborated by independent

sources such as informant statements, police reports and personal

investigation, thereby assuring CI2's credibility. CI2 told

Hambrook that he had known Loukedes for years and had done dozens

of marijuana deals with Loukedes in the past. CI2 indicated that

he both bought marijuana from and sold to Loukedes. CI2 stated

that Loukedes was a major marijuana dealer with sources in

California, that Tzimopoulos was his girlfriend, and that

Tzimopoulos was involved in Loukedes' marijuana business,

receiving a percentage of the profits derived from the trade.

CI2 told Hambrook that Loukedes recently moved to a town near

Bear Brook State Park, that his telephone was listed under the

name Matt Richardson and that the first three digits of his phone

number are 485. CI2 said that Loukedes moved due to recent

police activity in the Manchester area.

On November 2, 1994, Hambrook spoke with NHSP Corporal Susan

Forey. Forey stated that on November 1, 1994, she and Agent

Gerry Graffam of the United States Drug Enforcement

4 Administration conducted an interview with a confidential

informant ("CI3"). CI3 is known to be a reliable informant, who

has provided information leading to the execution of numerous

successful searches and indictments. CI3 told Forey that for a

four-week period during the summer of 1994 he accompanied Robert

Leonard on numerous marijuana deliveries. According to CI3, in

August 1994, he was asked by Leonard and Loukedes to accompany

them to Florida to "rip off," i.e., take drugs or money from,

another dealer. On the day he was scheduled to leave for Florida

with Leonard and Loukedes he was told to meet Leonard at his

storage bin located at a Manchester, New Hampshire facility.

While there, an unidentified male ("UM") arrived and an argument

ensued. The UM accused Leonard of being at the facility to "rip

him off." Leonard responded that he was not going to rip off the

UM, that he had his own bin for storage of drugs. At this time

Leonard opened a suitcase and showed the UM twelve pounds of

marijuana. The UM threatened Leonard with bodily harm if he

"ripped him off." CI3 noticed that the UM was carrying a gun

holster. After the UM left, Leonard asked CI3 to put the

suitcase in CI3's storage bin to prevent the UM from stealing

from Leonard.

On November 22, 1994, Hambrook spoke with CI3, who told

Hambrook that he did accompany Leonard and Loukedes to Florida in

5 late August 1994. According to CI3, upon arrival in Florida he

was left in a hotel room with a large sum of money while Leonard

and Loukedes attended an arranged meeting. CI3 then stole

Leonard and Loukedes' money and returned to Manchester, New

Hampshire, via commercial flight. Once landed, he proceeded

directly to the Manchester storage facility and retrieved the

twelve pounds of marijuana. While at the storage unit, he was

beeped by Leonard on his digital pager. CI3 called Leonard, who

informed CI3 that if he returned the money, Leonard and Loukedes

would forget the entire episode. CI3 did not return the money or

the drugs.

Under Hambrook's direction, CI3 paged Leonard. Leonard

returned the call and CI3 informed him that the money and drugs

were being stored at a locker facility in Massachusetts. CI3

went on to explain that because he lost all his identification,

he could not enter the locker. CI3 stated he would obtain a new

ID in seven to ten days, at which time he would retrieve the

money and drugs for Leonard. Leonard told CI3 that "Paul" had

"nineteen in the pile" (meaning nineteen pounds of marijuana) and

that they wanted all the marijuana returned. CI3 then informed

Leonard that CI3 has a customer at the University of New

Hampshire ("UNH") that could deal twenty pounds of marijuana per

week. Leonard instructed CI3 speak with his customer.

6 Approximately twenty minutes after the first call, CI3 again

paged Leonard. A short time later Leonard returned the call and

CI3 told him that the customer from UNH wished to buy two pounds

to check the guality of the product. Leonard stated that he

would be in touch.

Later in the day, CI3 again paged Leonard. A short time

later, Leonard returned the call. Leonard told CI3 that "Paul"

was willing to accept the money but was not interested in making

a deal. Leonard noted that both he and Loukedes had been forced

to move as a result of CI3's action. Leonard told CI3 that

Loukedes blamed Leonard for introducing CI3 to the operation.

Leonard further informed CI3 that "Georgia" suspected CI3 of

cooperating with authorities and that Loukedes had paid for

Leonard to move to a new house. Leonard indicated that if he

worked alone he would deal with CI3, but because he worked with

Loukedes, there could be no relationship.

On December 6, 1994, under the direction of Sergeant Brain

Hester, CI3 paged Leonard. CI3 told Leonard he was going to his

storage unit to retrieve the drugs he owed to Leonard and

Loukedes. Leonard said the drugs were half his and half Paul

Loukedes'. Leonard told CI3 that he was bringing Billy Spinner

with him to "make sure there is no funny business." CI3 said he

would page Leonard when he had the drugs with him.

7 Later that day, law enforcement officials arranged to rent a

room at the Manchester Travelodge. The room was wired with a

hidden microphone and conversations taped with permission from

the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office. CI3 was provided

fourteen pounds of marijuana to give to Leonard. CI3 paged

Leonard on his digital pager. CI3 informed Leonard that he had

his fourteen pounds and told Leonard where he was located.

Leonard told CI3 that he would be there in about one hour.

Leonard arrived shortly thereafter and opened the bag

containing the marijuana. Leonard asked about the packaging of

the drugs and discussed the possibility of future deals. Leonard

stated that Paul Loukedes had gone out West to pick up 250 pounds

of marijuana and that he was "driving" this load back to New

Hampshire for somebody else.

At approximately 5:10 p.m., Leonard left carrying the bag

containing the fourteen pounds of marijuana. Leonard was then

arrested by members of the NHSP and the Manchester Police

Department. A subseguent search of Leonard's residence revealed

a personal phone list. Under the entry "LL, " Loukedes' nickname,

were the two numbers noted by CI1 as Loukedes. Also under this

entry was Loukedes' beeper number. The numbers were found to be

listed to a Matthew Richardson, the name CI2 stated Loukedes was

using to list his telephone service. In his affidavit, Hambrook also set forth his training and

experience and stated that based upon such training and

experience, certain records, documents, weapons and other

evidence would be found at the residence of Loukedes and

Tzimopoulos.

Discussion

Tzimopoulos argues the warrant is flawed because Hambrook's

affidavit provides little specific information regarding any

alleged drug activities in which she participates. Motion to

Suppress, 5 8. According to Tzimopoulos, "very little detail is

provided in the Hambrook Affidavit to demonstrate a 'substantial

basis' for finding a probable cause as to the alleged drug

activities of . . . Tzimopoulos."

at 5 11.

A state search warrant resulting in a federal prosecution is

evaluated under federal law. United States v. Soule,

(1st Cir. 1990). "'"The products of a search

conducted under the authority of a validly issued state warrant

are lawfully obtained for federal prosecutorial purposes if that

warrant [1] satisfies constitutional reguirements and [2] does

not contravene any Rule-embodied policy designed to protect the

integrity of the federal courts or to govern the conduct of federal officers."'"

(quoting United States v. Mitro, 880

F .2d 1480 (1st Cir. 1989)).1

"Constitutional requirements are satisfied so long as there

was probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant."

. The court applies the totality of the circumstances

test set forth in Illinois v. Gates,

(1983),

which provides that probable cause cannot be determined by rigid

rules and fixed standards.

(citing United States v.

Caggiano,

(1st Cir. 1990)). Under Gates, the

judicial officer responsible for issuing the warrant must

determine only that the totality of the circumstances set forth

in the application for the warrant indicates a fair probability

that a search would uncover contraband or evidence of a crime at

a particular place. United States v. Burke,

(1st Cir. 1993); United States v. Diaz,

(1st Cir.

1988). Totality of the circumstances includes veracity and the

basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information.

Burke,

. The duty of the reviewing court is to

verify that the issuing officer had a substantial basis for

concluding that probable cause existed. Soule,

;

Caggiano,

.

1The defendant has not directed the court to any rule- embodied policy violated by the issuance of the warrant.

10 Based on the accounts of the various informants, the

Hambrook affidavit provided sufficient evidence that there

existed a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be

found at the Loukedes/Tzimopoulos residence. The affidavit also

contains ample information regarding the credibility of key

informants from which the issuing judge could conclude that

probable cause existed .

The affidavit revealed that the various law enforcement

agencies received direct communications from participants

regarding Loukedes' involvement in the sale of contraband. Known

buyers were found to posses Loukedes' and Tzimopoulos's address

and phone number, despite the aliases under which each was

maintained. Although the information was received from various

sources, it remained consistent. The specificity and details

included in these accounts provided credibility to the

informants. See Caggiano,

n.2. The reliability

of the accounts was heightened since many of the accounts were

based on personal observation. See Burke,

. In

addition, the credibility of CIS was significantly enhanced by

the police's independent corroboration.

. Likewise,

the affidavit provided a sufficient basis for the issuing judge

to credit CIS's basis of knowledge. Finally, the issuing judge

11 was also entitled to note that certain informants had proven

reliable in the past. See id.; Soule,

.

Furthermore, "the affidavit was prepared by a police officer

whose experience and expertise provided [the state judge] with

further reason to credit the representation in the warrant that

[evidence] would be found at [the residence.]" See Soule,

. The issuing judicial officer is entitled to rely

upon the conclusions of experienced law enforcement officers

regarding the location where evidence is likely to be found.

Thus, there was sufficient probable cause to support the issuance

of a warrant to search the premises at 14A Pheasant Run,

Pembroke, New Hampshire. It is of no moment that the affidavit

is substantially more focused on the activities of Loukedes than

those of Tzimopoulos. As noted supra, it is reguired that there

be probable cause to believe evidence will be found at the place

to be searched. Whether the person who owns the premises or who

lives at the premises is involved in the alleged crime is

immaterial to the constitutionality of any search.2

Moreover, even if the court were to find that the search

warrant was not supported by probable cause, the evidence seized

would still be admissible under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S.

2Counsel has apparently confused the probable cause standard for a search and the probable cause standard for an arrest.

12 897, 922-24 (1984). In Leon the Supreme Court held that evidence

need not be suppressed even if a search warrant is subsequently

invalidated as long as the officers acted with objectively good-

faith reliance on the warrant. Id. (suppression is appropriate

only if warrant is completely lacking in indicia of probable

cause). The affidavit appears to the court to establish adequate

probable cause. An officer is not required to apply a more

stringent standard than that of the reviewing court. See id.;

Diaz,

.

Tzimopoulos also argues that three jet skis and two trailers

were illegally seized "because they were not listed among the

category of items stated in the warrant." Motion to Suppress at

5 17. The warrant provides that among items to be seized are

ITEMS WHICH ARE DRUG PROFITS OR EVIDENCE OF DRUG TRAFFICKING PROCEEDS OR TO BE USED TO OBTAIN DRUGS United States or foreign currency or coins, jewelry, gems, precious metals, antiques, art works, stocks and bonds, and certificates of deposit.

Defendant's Exhibit 1. It is well established that evidence of

unexplained wealth is relevant in proving that a defendant was

involved in drug trafficking. See, e.g.. United States v. Ford,

(1st Cir.), cert, denied, 115 S. C t . 257 (1994);

United States v. Figueroa,

, 1454 (1st Cir. 1992),

cert, denied, 113 S. C t . 1346 (1993); United States v. Geer,

(1st Cir. 1991). The complained of items are

13 evidence of unexplained wealth and thus included within the

description of items to be seized.

Conclusion

The motion to suppress (document no. 72) based on

deficiencies in the affidavit supporting the warrant is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Chief Judge August 30, 1995

cc: Steven G. Shadallah, Esguire Matthew J. Lahey, Esguire George H. Ostler, Esguire U.S. Attorney U.S. Probation U.S. Marshal

14