Ny

defendant’s Fifth Amendment claim is denied without prejudice.

Defendant also asserts that prior to his interrogation, he “was not advised that he had
already been indicted, nor was he given any admonishments concerning his Sixth Amendment
right to counsel.” (Mot. at § 2.) The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only after the
initiation of adversarial proceedings “whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing,
indictment, information, or arraignment.” Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972).
Adversarial proceedings do not commence on the issuance of an arrest warrant. United States v.
Knowles, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1144 (E.D. Wis. 1998); United States ex rel. Dove v. Thieret, 693
F. Supp. 716, 720 (C.D. Ill. 1988). A criminal complaint was filed and an arrest warrant issued
prior to States’ arrest and interrogation, however he did not make an initial appearance until the
following day and was not indicted until more than two months later. Under these
circumstances, defendant cannot show his right to counsel attached prior to the interrogation,
therefore there can be no Sixth Amendment violation. Accordingly, the motion is denied with
prejudice as to States’ Sixth Amendment claim.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to suppress and request for a hearing is
denied with prejudice as to defendant’s Sixth Amendment claim and without prejudice as to his
Fifth Amendment claim. Defendant is allowed 21 days to resubmit his motion on Fifth

Amendment grounds so long as it is supported by specific, detailed facts which, if proven at a

ff fof 0
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: A (a) /

_
; ty bhi Lip
HON. RONALD A. GU: A

United States Judge

hearing, would entitle him to relief.


Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. He has also requested an evidentiary hearing.
Discussion

A defendant who seeks to suppress evidence must make a prima facie showing of
illegality. United States v. Randle, 966 F.2d 1209, 1212 (7th Cir. 1992). Vague, conclusory
allegations are insufficient. Rather, a defendant must set forth “definite, specific, detailed, and
non-conjectural” facts that, if proven, would justify relief. Jd. (quoting United States v. Hamm,
786 F.2d 804, 807 (7° Cir. 1986)). Further, these facts must be material, and they must be
disputed. Id.

States asserts that while en route to the police station he “invoked his right to remain
silent” and upon arrival at the station “indicated that he wanted a lawyer.” (Mot. at [5.) About
twelve hours later, States was given a standard Miranda warning, after which he waived his
rights, submitted to questioning, and made some incriminating statements. According to States,
these statements were obtained in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

Defendant’s motion must be denied because it contains nothing more than vague,
conclusory allegations. For instance, defendant claims he “invoked his right to remain silent”
and “indicated that he wanted a lawyer” prior to being questioned. However, defendant did not
spell out what he said or did to invoke his rights. In addition, defendant fails to specify who
initiated the conversation which ultimately led to him making an incriminating statement. Both
issues are crucial to a determination of whether defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights were
violated, yet are noticeably absent from defendant’s motion. See Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91,
95 (1984); Edwards y. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981). Without specific, detailed facts

that could amount to a Fifth Amendment violation, defendant is not entitled to a hearing. Thus,


“Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Ronald A. Guzman Sitting Judge if Other
~ or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 CR 464 - 6 DATE 3/10/2004
CASE USA vs. CHARLES STATES
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) o Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due_____.

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon___setfor___at

(5) Qo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__at

(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on eset for at
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at.

9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) CO) Local Rule 41.1 CMIFRCP41(a)(1) CI FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) MH [Other docket entry] ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant’s motion
to suppress and request for a hearing [240-1 ]is denied with prejudice as to defendant’s Sixty Amendment
claim and without prejudice as to his Fifth Amendment claim. Defendant is allowed 21 days to resubmit
his motion on Fifth Amendment grounds so long as it is supported by specific, detailed facts which, if
proven at a hearing, would entitle him to relief.

gl ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. umber of notices
Y | Notices mailed by judge's staff. 4 400
Rize2 04
Notified counsel by telephone, VS ceb ad”
Docketing to mail notices
Mail AO 450 form,
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
svto2004
courtroom 4 Lay date aed notice
ca deputy’s oc
initials

o*"Date/time received in
{central Clerk’s Office nailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES, )
Plaintiff, } 02 CR 464-6
v. ; Judge Ronald A. Guzman
CHARLES STATES, ) )
Uy

Defendant. “ap ; Tey

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER a 00g

Before the Court is defendant Charles States’ motion to suppress his post-arrest
statements and request for an evidentiary hearing. For the following reasons, the motion is
denied with prejudice as to States’ Sixth Amendment claim and without prejudice as to his Fifth
Amendment claim.

Background

In May 2002, a criminal complaint was filed charging States and others with participation
in a drug conspiracy. These charges stemmed from a series of alleged events including numerous
kidnapings of drug dealers and suspected drug dealers. The defendants allegedly interrogated
their victims as to the whereabouts of their drugs and money, threatened them, and in some cases,
severely beat them. Arrest warrants were issued in connection with these charges and, by early
October 2002, States remained a fugitive.

Around midnight on the morning of October 9, 2002, agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”) and officers of the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”) went to an

apartment on 79" Street in Chicago where they had reason to believe States lived. Two FBI


=

agents and three CPD officers entered the building and proceeded to a third floor apartment.
They allegedly knocked on the door and announced that they were law enforcement officers.
Receiving no response, one of the officers began to strike the door with a sledgehammer.

States claims he did not hear the officers’ announcement prior to hearing the front door
being rammed. He allegedly looked outside, but saw no police cars. Fearing gang members
were invading his home, States retrieved a gun and fired several times through the front door.
The officers returned fire. During the crossfire, States heard shouts of “FBI.” He then threw two
guns out the window and allegedly tried to open the door, which was jammed.

The police kicked in the door and arrested States. On the way to the station, States claims
he invoked his “right to remain silent” and indicated that he “wanted a lawyer.” (Mot. at { 5.)
Neither Defendant’s motion nor the Government’s response mentions whether States had any
further contact with law enforcement overnight.’ States alleges he was first advised of his
Miranda rights the following afternoon, about twelve hours after he was arrested. At that time,
States executed a waiver and agreed to give a statement. States acknowledged, among other
things, his participation in some of the kidnapings set forth in the complaint.

In December 2002, an indictment was returned charging States and others with
racketeering, weapons, drug and violent offenses. The indictment also charged States with
offenses relating to the shots he fired at the FBI agents and CPD officers during his arrest. States

now moves to suppress his post-arrest statements, alleging they were obtained in violation of his

| States’ motion asserts that sometime after his arrest and prior to his statement, his mother contacted a
lawyer. The attorney allegedly called the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case, who refused to
discuss the matter unless and until the attorney had been retained. There is no allegation, however, that States
initiated or was even aware of his mother’s actions, Further, the attomey apparently was never retained.

2