UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 1:15-CR-10-TLS

)

DEWAYNE LEWIS )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the pro se Defendant’s Motion to Suppress [ECF No.

315], filed on November 1, 2017, the Government’s Response [ECF No. 317], filed on 

November 13, 2017, and the Defendant’s Reply [ECF No. 324], filed on December 12, 2017.1 In 

this Motion to Suppress, the Defendant argues that the Government admitted to new information 

regarding how law enforcement originally obtained his cellular telephone number.

For the reasons below, the Court denies the Defendant’s Motion.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Dewayne Lewis is charged with knowingly and intentionally possessing with 

intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In 

April and May of 2015, the Defendant filed various motions seeking to dismiss the Indictment 

and suppress evidence, which this Court consolidated and referred to Magistrate Judge Susan 

Collins to conduct an evidentiary hearing and issue a report and recommendation. In February of 

2016, Judge Collins held the evidentiary hearing. Thereafter, Judge Collins issued her Report and 

Recommendation [ECF No. 265] on the consolidated Motion, and the Government Objected 

[ECF No. 267]. On July 10, 2017, this Court issued its Opinion and Order [ECF No. 272] 

denying the Defendant’s consolidated Motion. The Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration 

[ECF No. 275] on July 18, 2017, which the Court denied [ECF No. 291] on August 28, 2017. On 

September 1, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion for Hearing to Compel Evidence [ECF No.

1 The Court is also in receipt of the Defendant’s Motion for a Ruling [ECF No. 339] on the instant Motion, filed on 

January 9, 2018.
2

292]. On September 14, 2017, Judge Collins held a hearing [ECF No. 299] and denied the 

Motion to Compel, finding that the Government had complied with its discovery obligations. On 

September 19, 2017, the Defendant filed a request for his hearing transcript [ECF No. 300], and 

on September 21, 2017, Judge Collins denied the request [ECF No. 301].

ANALYSIS

In the instant Motion, the Defendant argues that during the discovery hearing held in 

front of Judge Collins on September 14, 2017, the Government “disclosed [] ‘new information 

[and] facts’ to the Defendant and Court that the Government did not have any recordings or text 

messages connecting the Defendant’s cellular telephone #317-507-8010 to the [confidential] 

informant.” (Def.’s Mot. to Suppress 2, ECF No. 315.) The Defendant contends that this means 

that the Government “misled and fabricated the information and facts during the evidentiary 

hearing held on February 10, 201[6], and in its brief (ECF No. 186) on how law enforcement 

obtained the Defendant’s cellular telephone number 317-507-8010, which the Government ha[d] 

presented that they had evidence of recordings and text messages . . . .” (Id. at 3). Accordingly, 

the Defendant now requests that all evidence seized as a result of this be suppressed. In his 

Reply, the Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing on this point.

During the February 10, 2016, Suppression Hearing, Special Agent James Keszei 

testified as to how the confidential informant received a telephone number from Allen Bates 

purporting to belong to “Nap” and “Wayne.” The informant then provided the relevant telephone 

number to agents. In its July 10, 2017, Opinion and Order, the Court held that “[t]he parties do 

not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact, and the Court adopts them in their entirety.” 

(July 10, 2017, Order 3, ECF No. 272.) The Court held that “the officers had strong evidence that 

a man nicknamed Nap or Wayne was part of the Bates drug conspiracy.” (Id. at 19.)

In his Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s July 10, 2017, Opinion and Order, the 

Defendant posited a similar argument to the one he now makes. In his Motion for 

Reconsideration, the Defendant argued “that the Government failed to introduce any records and
3

or text messages at any evidentiary hearings in this case connecting the Defendant’s cellular 

number 317-507-8010 to the CHS informant by anyone on 1-29-2015 to corroborate the 

testimony of law enforcement.” (Mot. for Recons. 6, ECF No. 275.) The Court denied the 

Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 291]. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a Motion for Hearing to 

Compel Evidence, again contending that the Government did not turn over the requisite evidence 

“connecting the Defendant’s telephone number 317-507-8010 to the CHS in this case . . . .” 

(Def.’s Mot. for Hr’g to Compel Evid., Exhibit 1, ECF No. 292-1.) Judge Collins held a hearing 

on this point on September 14, 2017, and found that the Government had complied with its 

discovery obligations and denied the Motion [ECF No. 299].

As a means of arguing the merits of the same issue concerning his telephone number, the 

Defendant argues in the instant Motion that the Government “disclosed [] ‘new information 

[and] facts’ to the Defendant and Court that the Government did not have any recordings or text 

messages connecting the Defendant’s cellular telephone #317-507-8010 to the [confidential] 

informant” during the September 14, 2017, hearing in front of Judge Collins. However, the Court 

finds that Judge Collins has already ruled on the merits of this argument in her Order regarding 

the Defendant’s request for a transcript from the hearing, holding:

Although Lewis claims that “new information of facts [were] disclosed by 

the government during the hearing” [ECF No. 300 at 1], that is not the case, as the 

Governmentsimply reviewed all of Lewis’srequest and reported how it had already 

responded to such requests, or the Government reiterated that it did not have the 

information Lewis requested.

[ECF No. 301].

Accordingly, because a ruling has already been issued regarding whether the Government 

disclosed new information that would require reconsidering the manner in which the Defendant’s 

telephone number connected him to the conspiracy, the Court declines to revisit the issue

through another hearing and denies the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.
4

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress 

[ECF No. 315]. Accordingly, the Court DENIES, AS MOOT, the Defendant’s Motion for a 

Ruling [ECF No. 339].

SO ORDERED on January 11, 2018.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT