IN THE UNITED stares pistarcr court F | L E D
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION APR 2 9 2005
EIS HARRY D, LENE!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, - ~'"TRICT COURT JUDGE
Plaintiff, Case No. 04 CR 672
v. Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

ORLANDO MARTINEZ-NAVARRO,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Orlando Martinez-Navarro (hereinafter, “Navarro”
moves to quash his arrest and suppress’ statements and
identifications on the grounds that there was no probable cause to
arrest him.

I. DISCUSSION

To warrant an evidentiary hearing, a defendant must “show
‘definite, specific, detailed, and non conjectural facts’
justifying relief.” United States v. Mallard, No. 93 CR 566, 1994
WL 22958 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 1994). Here, Navarro provided an
affidavit, which states that he traveled with Defendant Bernea
Boone from Texas to Chicago and that he did not know Juan Garcia
and had not met him prior to the encounter at Burger King.
However, the affidavit fails to state that Navarro was not present
and did not assist Bernea Boone in loading the drugs into Garcia’s

trailer truck in Texas. Accordingly, the Court concludes that


Navarro has not demonstrated that an evidentiary hearing is
warranted.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement officer may
arrest a person only if he has probable cause to believe that the
person has committed or is committing a crime. See United States
v. Nobles, 69 F.3d 172, 180 (7th Cir. 1995). The probable cause
must be “particularized with respect to that person . . . and
cannot . . . simply point[] to the fact that coincidentally there
exists probable cause to search or seize another or to search the
premises where the person may happen to be.” Ybarra v. Illinois,
444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979).

Navarro argues that agents lacked any basis for particularized
suspicion about his involvement with the drug transaction.
Specifically, Defendant asserts he was not recorded speaking about
the drug transaction; he did not participate in the transfer of the
drugs; he had no contact with the individuals who transferred the
drugs; and agents did not observe him doing anything illegal. The
Government responds that at the time they arrested Navarro, the
agents had probable cause to believe he was conspiring to
distribute cocaine based on the following factors: (1) Garcia told
the agents that he agreed to deliver cocaine from Texas to Chicago
at Bernea Boone’s request; (2) Garcia permitted Bernea Boone and
another individual, later identified as Navarro, to load the drugs

into his tractor trailer in Texas; (3) Navarro arrived with Bernea


Boone in a car with Texas license plates at Burger King, the
prearranged location of the drug transaction; and (4) agents
observed Navarro and Bernea Boone walk over to Garcia and engage in
brief conversation before entering Burger King.

Based on the evidence presented, the Court concludes that the
agents had particularized probable cause to believe that Navarro
was committing the crime of conspiring to distribute a controlled
substance when they arrested him. Accordingly, Navarro’s motion to
quash his arrest and suppress statements is denied.

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Orlando Martinez-
Navarro’s Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Statements is DENIED.

In addition, Defendant Orlando Martinez-Navarro’s Motions for
a Santiago Hearing on Admissibility of Co-conspirator Statements or
Proffer of Evidence, Disclosure of 404(b) Evidence, and Disclosure
of Evidence Which May Lead to the Impeachment of any Government
Witness are DENIED AS MOOT. The government shall produce its Brady
and Giglio materials, 404(b) evidence, and Santiago proffer no
later than three weeks before trial.

The Government’s Motion for Reciprocal Discovery is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

, Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge

— United States District Court
Dated: