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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARCUS ETIENNE, ELIZABETH

GOBERT, CRAIG MARSHALL, and

MARIO ROBINSON,

Defendants. /

No. CR 17-00093 WHA

ORDER RE (1) MOTION TO

RESET DEADLINE FOR

PRETRIAL MOTIONS; 

(2) MOTION TO SUPPRESS

MAY 2016 SEARCH; AND 

(3) FEBRUARY 20

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this prosecution under RICO, VICAR, and other penal statutes, defendant moves to

reset the deadline for pretrial motions and has filed four motions to suppress. For the following

reasons, the motion to reset the deadline for pretrial motions is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion

for a Franks hearing and to suppress a May 2016 search is DENIED. An evidentiary hearing on

defendant’s remaining motions to suppress is set for FEBRUARY 20 AT 8:00 A.M.

STATEMENT

The background of this action is set forth in prior orders (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 302). In

brief, the third superseding indictment alleges that defendant Marcus Etienne was a member of

the “Etienne Enterprise,” a criminal organization that ran a marijuana-trafficking operation from

California to Louisiana and Texas. In March 2016, Etienne, along with certain of his co-
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

2

defendants, allegedly murdered Trice Thibodeaux (“T.T.”) in furtherance of their marijuanatrafficking operation (Dkt. No. 336). 

The original scheduling order in this case set a deadline of March 1, 2018, to file motions

to suppress. Subsequent orders extended this deadline to April 6, 2018. On April 6, Etienne

(through then-retained attorneys Charles Woodson and Darryl Stallworth) moved to suppress the

fruits of traffic stops that occurred on May 12, 2016, and December 13, 2016. That motion was

denied. Now represented by new counsel, Etienne moves to reset the deadline for pretrial

motions to suppress pursuant to Rule 12(c)(2). Etienne has also filed four new motions to

suppress (Dkt. Nos. 129, 166–67, 288, 304–10). This order follows briefing and oral argument.

ANALYSIS

1. MOTION TO RESET DEADLINE FOR PRETRIAL MOTIONS.

At the Court’s direction, Etienne has submitted declarations from his former and current

counsel explaining why they did not file the late motions to suppress sooner. Moreover, in

December 2018, the government filed a third superseding indictment naming a new defendant

and adding new charges against Etienne. As a result, our trial date and other pre-trial deadlines

have been vacated and have yet to be reset. Given these developments, the late motions to

suppress no longer run the risk of disrupting this action’s scheduling order. Etienne’s motion to

reset the deadline for pretrial motions is accordingly GRANTED.

2. MOTION TO SUPPRESS SEARCH OF HOME ON MAY 12, 2016.

Etienne has moved for a Franks hearing to determine whether the affidavit in support of a

May 2016 search warrant contained deliberate or reckless material omissions regarding its

description of an interrogation of Elizabeth Gobert, Etienne’s wife (Dkt. No. 308). The search

warrant authorized the search of Gobert’s home in Opelousas, Louisiana. The affidavit in

support of the search warrant application, authored by Detective Chris David of the St. Landry

Parish Sheriff’s Office, stated the following (Dkt. No. 308-2):
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

3

During the afternoon hours of May 12, 2016, Detective Chris

David with the St. Landry Parish Sheriff’s Office and TFC Dustin

Guidroz with the Louisiana State Police conducted a voluntary

interview with Elizabeth Ann Gobert at the St. Landry Parish

Sheriff’s Office. The interview was conducted following an

investigation conducted by St. Landry Parish Sheriff’s Office

Narcotics Team in reference to Marcus Etienne being involved in

illegal drug trafficking.

Detective Brandon Dugas received information today, from a

credible source of information, who stated while he was speaking

to Etienne, he smelled what he knew to be Marijuana emitting

from an object which came from within Etienne’s vehicle. 

Detective Dugas obtained a description of that vehicle. Detectives

later observed Etienne at his known residence located at 6*** Hwy

31 in Opelousas, LA. Detectives observed Etienne meet with

>>>> black males in the driveway of his (Etienne’s) home. 

Detectives observed Etienne and a black female drive away from

the home shortly after. 

Detective Logan Kartchner conducted a probable cause traffic stop

on the target vehicle. During the traffic stop, Detective Kartchner

located approximately $10,000 in U.S. currency, suspected

Codeine mixed in a flavored drink and multiple cellular

telephones. 

TFC Guidroz advised Gobert of her Rights per Miranda via

Waiver of Rights Form. Gobert stated she understood her rights

and wished to speak to us without legal counsel present. During

conversation with Gobert, she stated she recently smoked

Marijuana inside her home, specifically her bedroom. Gobert

continued to say there was additional Marijuana inside the home. 

Gobert also said she observed “vape pens” with what she believed

to be liquid Marijuana inside the home.

Etienne argues that Detective David’s statement that “Gobert continued to say there was

additional Marijuana inside her home” was misleading given the omission that Gobert admitted,

after several denials, only to having marijuana “residue.” Maybe so. But even if Detective

David did intentionally or recklessly omit that Gobert claimed to possess only a minuscule

amount of marijuana in her home, Etienne is not entitled to a Franks hearing.

Probable cause exists when “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a

crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). While

Detective David’s purported omission concerning the amount of marijuana in Gobert’s home

may have undercut probable cause to believe that evidence of drug trafficking would be found,

the warrant was not so limited. Rather, Detective David’s affidavit asserted that probable cause

existed to believe that, among other things, “illegal drugs” and “drug paraphernalia” would be
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

4

found in the home (Dkt. No. 308-2 at 5). Accordingly, even supplemented with the claimed

omissions, the affidavit would sufficiently support a finding of probable cause to search.

Etienne also argues that the search warrant affidavit relied on the uncorroborated and

unreliable statements of a confidential informant who purportedly smelled marijuana emitting

from Etienne’s vehicle. The government responds that this information was included merely as

“history” of the traffic stop and Gobert’s subsequent interview and therefore was not relied upon

to establish probable cause. In any event, even with the informant’s statements excised from the

affidavit, what remains — namely, the circumstances of the traffic stop and Gobert’s statements

regarding her personal use of marijuana and possession of “residue” — would still support a

finding of probable cause to search for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia in the home. 

Finally, because this order concludes that the search warrant and subsequent search of

Gobert’s home was valid, it need not reach the government’s argument that Etienne failed to

establish his standing to challenge the search. The motion for a Franks hearing and to suppress

the evidence seized during the search of Gobert’s home on May 12, 2016, is DENIED.

3. REMAINING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS.

“Whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate rests in the reasoned discretion of the

district court.” United States v. Wardlow, 951 F.2d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United

States v. Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 857 (9th Cir. 1986)). An evidentiary hearing is appropriate in

order to resolve the issues raised in Etienne’s remaining motions to suppress. With respect to

Etienne’s motion to suppress the December 6, 2016, search of his phones, the Court is

particularly interested in the government’s argument that any defect in the warrant was cured by

the warrant’s incorporation of the accompanying affidavit. An evidentiary hearing on the

motions was previously set for FEBRUARY 20 AT 8:00 A.M. If needed, an additional evidentiary

hearing will take place on MARCH 4 AT 8:00 A.M.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Etienne’s motion to reset the deadlines for pretrial motions is

GRANTED. His motion for a Franks hearing and to suppress the May 2016 search of Gobert’s

home is DENIED. An evidentiary hearing on Etienne’s remaining motions to suppress will be
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

5

held on FEBRUARY 20 AT 8:00 A.M. If needed, an additional evidentiary hearing will take place

on MARCH 4 AT 8:00 A.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE