Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cr-00007/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cr-00007-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Soltero
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are

to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

ORDER

CR 13-00007 SI (LB)

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE SOLTERO,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. CR 13-00007 SI (LB)

ORDER

[ECF No. 185]

INTRODUCTION

The district judge ordered certain discovery on February 18, 2015, and thereafter referred

discovery to the undersigned to review whether the government complied with her order and

whether the FBI manual on informants should be disclosed to counsel for defendant Jose Soltero.

(2/18/15 Discovery Order, ECF No. 170; 2/25/15 Referral, ECF No. 185; 2/25/15 Transcript (“RT”), 

ECF No. 194; Referral, ECF Nos. 185, 192.)1

 The parties submitted briefs and supporting

declarations, and the government submitted for in camera review (1) the FBI manual and (2)

unredacted copies of materials that it disclosed to Mr. Soltero in redacted form. (ECF Nos. 195-198,

202, 204-205.) The court held a hearing on March 19, 2015, and ordered the discovery memorialized

in this order. (See Minute Order, ECF No. 206.) 

Case 3:13-cr-00007-SI Document 217 Filed 03/21/15 Page 1 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

CR 13-00007 SI (LB) 2

STATEMENT

The indictment charges extortion under the Hobbs Act and impersonating a federal police officer

arising out of what the government alleges is Mr. Soltero’s shakedown of growers of marijuana. The

government says that the growers paid Mr. Soltero money in return for his promise to prevent the

government from (1) investigating grow sites (“rent” payments) and (2) raiding grow sites and

arresting growers (“help” payments), all from roughly October 2009 until September 2011. (See

Indictment, ECF No. 1; Government’s Trial Memorandum, ECF No. 115.) Mr. Soltero was a

confidential informant (“CI”) at various times for the DEA, the FBI, and a particular San Francisco

police officer. According to the government, eventually the growers complained to the FBI. The

investigation and indictment of Mr. Soltero followed. The record reveals three growers, two who are

testifying witnesses (Kevin Lieu and Eric Tran) and one who is no longer testifying (Sam Mac). All

three were informants, at least during the investigation of Mr. Soltero.

When agents arrested him for the extortion scheme, Mr. Soltero admitted his conduct but said

that he was not the instigator. Instead, he said, he acted the direction of the San Francisco police

officer who handled him. (See 2/25/15 RT, ECF No. 194.) The following account is in the transcript

of a discovery hearing before the district judge. (See id.) According to Mr. Soltero, his handling

officer got most of the money. Based on this accusation, the agents arranged for Mr. Soltero to call

the officer, saying something to the effect of, “I have the money.” (See id.) The officer responded

with something along the lines of, “I don’t know what you are talking about. Where are you?” The

record reveals that the officer knew Mr. Soltero was in jail because Mr. Soltero’s wife called the

officer and told him. A day or so later, the officer called the federal agents and said something to the

effect of, “I’m concerned I’m being set up.” The FBI investigated the officer, including searching his

emails, getting a credit report, and reviewing his financial information, but the government never

charged him because (they say) nothing corroborated the allegation that he was on the take through

the delivery device of this (or any) scheme. The officer’s attorney told the government that the

officer will not speak with the government now without a grant of immunity. The government has no

plans to immunize him. (See id.) At the March 19, 2015, hearing, the government said that the

officer remains on active duty with the San Francisco police department (“SFPD”). 

Case 3:13-cr-00007-SI Document 217 Filed 03/21/15 Page 2 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

CR 13-00007 SI (LB) 3

The discovery issues that were referred to the undersigned for a “compliance” review all involve

this SFPD officer, his conduct, and the appropriateness (for lack of a better word) about how the law

enforcement agencies handled Mr. Soltero and whether they followed procedures for handling

confidential informants. The other issue is whether, following the spirit of the district judge’s prior

discovery orders, the government must disclose the FBI’s manual on handling confidential

informants. The following chart summarizes the district judge’s discovery rulings that are

implicated by the referral and any resolutions that preceded the undersigned’s compliance review.

PRIOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Date of Order Synopsis of Dispute and Resolution

2/23/15

ECF 176

Produce the DEA manual excluding the sections regarding protection of

foreign confidential sources, subject to protective order (filed at ECF No.

179). Produced (and not raised as a production issue at the 3/19/15

compliance hearing).

2/18/15 

ECF 170

Produce full and complete government investigation into corruption

allegations made against the SFPD officer and SFPD Officer Rickey LNU.

(For the uninitiated, LNU stands for “last name unknown.”)

2/18/15 

ECF 170

Produce impeachment information relating to Kevin Lieu, Eric Tran, and Sam

Mac, including CI files, benefits conferred or offered by state or feds, results

from investigations into prior criminal activity, and criminal history. 

Government found nothing with SFPD or DEA and produced information

from FBI. (ECF No. 171 at 3-4.) 

2/18/15 

ECF 170

Ask SFPD again whether SFPD has any file on Lieu. Asked through police

legal liaison Ronnie Wagner; answer was no. Asked officer through counsel;

answer was no. 

2/18/15 

ECF 170

Henthorn requests related to the SFPD officer. Follow up and ask again.

Produce complaints; if not sure, submit in camera. If no complaints, say so.

2/18/15 

ECF 170

All SFPD policies regarding CI and human sources. Produced (and not raised

as a production issue at the 3/19/15 hearing).

2/18/15 

ECF 170

Records regarding cases where Soltero provided information to law

enforcement as a confidential source that disclose type and number of

criminals Soltero helped apprehend. Produced (and not raised as a production

issue at the 3/19/15 compliance hearing). 

The following are the materials that the government submitted for in camera review: (1) the FBI

Confidential Human Source Guide; (2) CI file for Eric Tran with redacted portions highlighted; (3)

CI file for Kevin Lieu with redacted portions highlighted; (4) FBI 302 for interview with FBI SA

Karin McInturff with redacted portions highlighted; and (5) FBI 302 for interview with Carlos

Case 3:13-cr-00007-SI Document 217 Filed 03/21/15 Page 3 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

CR 13-00007 SI (LB) 4

Alfaro with redacted portions highlighted. (A 302 is the number that the FBI uses for reports and is

used here as a shorthand for “report.”)

ANALYSIS

The following are the undersigned’s rulings made at the March 19 hearing.

I. FBI 302s

The court ordered the government to produce unredacted versions of the two 302s at issue for the

reasons stated on the record.

II. REDACTED PORTIONS OF CI FILES FOR ERIC TRAN AND KEVIN LIEU

The court does not order production. There are roughly 26 pages in all. As explained at the

hearing, the undersigned reviewed the documents. They contain no information that is useful,

relevant, or illuminating. They do not provide any useful context. Examples of the redactions are

case file numbers, routing information, or authorizations and approvals for evidence (such as a

recording) that was later obtained and disclosed. The government confirmed that any attachments

(such as a pdf or Word document) were produced and that all discovery disagreements were made

manifest through the parties’ briefing and redacted submissions (e.g., the redacted 302s that the

court ordered produced in the last section). There is nothing here.

III. FBI MANUAL

For the reasons stated on the record, the court does not believe the FBI manual should be

disclosed. The court considered the reasons that the defense proffered and takes a broad view (made

manifest in its disclosure of the redacted 302s) about the appropriate breadth of discovery given

what appears to be the defense in this case. But even considering that Mr. Soltero was an FBI CI in

2003 and again from March 2005 to November 29, 2010, the court does not view the FBI’s manual

as disclosable. In particular, the court does not think the link between the FBI and the San Mateo

Narcotics Task Force renders the information relevant, even considering Mr. Soltero’s alleged CI

work there. The defense in this case implicates whether this SFPD officer, working with this DEA

task force, worked appropriately with a CI who perhaps (under the government’s theory) went rogue

or perhaps (under the defense’s theory) worked at the direction of an SFPD officer who went rogue.

That may militate in favor of disclosing the CI procedures for the DEA and the FBI. For example,

Case 3:13-cr-00007-SI Document 217 Filed 03/21/15 Page 4 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

CR 13-00007 SI (LB) 5

the United States Attorneys’ Manual (“USAM”) describes a policy of broad disclosure of potential

impeachment information, including “(2) failure to comply with agency procedures for supervising

the activities of a cooperating person (C.I., C.S., CHS, etc.).” USAM”) 9-5.100(c)(v)(3). But the

fact of other work with a different task force does not render discoverable the CI procedures of the

FBI. Moreover, the government disclosed the FBI’s CI files regarding Mr. Soltero. 

For what it is worth, and as the court said at the hearing, the FBI’s procedures are thorough and

entirely predictable. The reality is that producing the materials is not that consequential, particularly

given that the court could identify portions of the CI manual that (again) are predictable, do not

implicate issues of national security, and could be produced under a protective order. That being

said, the court rules that the information is not disclosable here.

IV. THE FULL AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION INTO THE SFPD

As summarized in the chart above, the district judge ordered production of the “full and

complete” government investigation into the corruption allegations made against the SFPD officer

and SFPD officer Rickey LNU. Mr. Soltero’s counsel pointed to the district judge’s use of the

words “every scrap of paper” and her evident unhappiness with the drips and drabs of disclosures to

support his argument that compliance with the district judge’s order requires a literal photocopy (or

its electronic equivalent) of the FBI’s (or, really, the government’s) entire file. The argument is that

the district judge removed all discretion from the government and required disclosure of “every

scrap of paper,” period. The undersigned does not construe the district judge’s order so literally.

As Section II, “Redacted Portions of CI Files for Eric Tran and Kevin Lieu” (supra),

demonstrates, not every scrap of paper in the FBI’s file contains information about the investigation.

Much of the file does contain discoverable information (as the district judge here defined it). For

example, part of the file is for physical evidence, part is for reports, and part is for information such

as proffers or communications from victims or witnesses that the agent in turn cross-references to a

302 report. But even there (as discussed at the hearing) there may be information that the defense is

not entitled to know. An operations plan, for example, might have disclosable information about

who was at a surveillance and where they were (if relevant to percipient witness testimony or an

attack thereon), and it might point to other discoverable information about recordings or

Case 3:13-cr-00007-SI Document 217 Filed 03/21/15 Page 5 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

CR 13-00007 SI (LB) 6

photographs. But the defense is not allowed global insight into plans that reveal (for example) hand

signals or code words for a take-down or even (potentially) an agency’s high-end technology that

imbeds a recording device or a camera in a pen (examples that the undersigned made up to

demonstrate the issue). In the end, it is not the format of information that drives what is

discoverable. It is the content.

At the hearing, government attorney said that he personally reviewed the entire FBI file, as he

should, and he produced everything there that reflects the FBI’s investigation. See David W. Ogden,

Deputy Attorney General, Memorandum For Department Prosecutors, “Guidance for Prosecutors

Regarding Criminal Discovery,” January 4, 2010, at 4-6. The one area that he did not review was

the FBI’s notes. The court does not order disclosure of the notes. They are not discoverable. Unlike

an agent’s formal 302, which is reviewed and signed by the agent, an agent’s rough notes that are

not formal and complete are not “statements” that must be produced under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3500, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2. See United States v. Alvarez, 86 F.3d 901, 906

(9th Cir. 1996). That being said, and leaving aside the implications of Rule 16, see United States v.

Fort, 472 F.3d 1106, 1119 (9th Cir. 2007), the government has produced the 302s. What remains at

issue is whether there is anything in the rough notes that did not make it into the 302s. If there is,

then that information must be disclosed because that is what the district judge ordered. The

government must review (and said that it would review) the rough notes and disclose any

information that is not in the 302s themselves. (The reality is that the FBI ordinarily agrees to

production of rough notes with information that is not in the 302s. The reality too is that the reports

generally are comprehensive and complete.)

To the extent that the defense argued that it is entitled to the prosecutor’s work product (such as

the prosecution memo), the undersigned does not order that disclosure. That being said, the

prosecutor’s own notes of witness interviews are not work product (except for impressions and the

like), and the prosecutor must review those notes not only for Brady or impeachment material but

also to be for information responsive to the district judge’s discovery order. Put another way, “every

scrap of paper” does not mean disclosure of the paper itself, but it means disclosure of information

on the paper that reveals the government’s investigation. 

Case 3:13-cr-00007-SI Document 217 Filed 03/21/15 Page 6 of 7
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

CR 13-00007 SI (LB) 7

V. HENTHORN REQUESTS REDIRECTED TO THE SFPD

The government affirmed that it had complied with the district judge’s directive to submit its

Henthorn/Pitchess requests again to the SFPD, and it received no responsive information. That

representation is sufficient. If the defense is not satisfied, it can submit a Rule 17(c) subpoena. (See

General Order 69.) The general order provides a process where the defense subpoenas information,

the responding agency produces it pursuant to a protective order (attached to G.O. 69), the defense

can use the information at trial only after receiving the district judge’s advance permission to do so,

and the information must be returned to the court or the producing agency at the end of the

complaint. (Id.) The government affirmed that it would not challenge production of the information

pursuant to a protective order, given that the U.S. Attorney’s Office was part of the negotiated

process that resulted in the order. (That being said, police legal’s position may be different.)

VI. FULL PRODUCTION OF ALL CI INFORMATION

The government asked SFPD Legal (through Ronnie Wagner) whether it had CI files for Lieu,

and the SFPD responded that it did not. The “handler” for Lieu also was the SFPD officer that Mr.

Soltero accuses. The government asked the SFPD officer (through his attorney) whether he had a file

(because officers can keep “desk” files). The answer was no. There is nothing more that the

government can do. As the undersigned pointed out to defense counsel, if the point is to attack the

integrity of the handling of a CI, the lack of information potentially is useful. In any event, all the

government can do is verify the discovery landscape, and it has done that.

CONCLUSION

The court orders the discovery memorialized above (including the review of notes and

production of any information not in the 302 reports). Otherwise, the court concludes that the

government complied with the district judge’s February 18, 2015 discovery order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2015 

 LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cr-00007-SI Document 217 Filed 03/21/15 Page 7 of 7