When moving to suppress evidence, the defendant bears the
burden of making a prima facie showing of illegal action by the
government in obtaining the evidence. United States v. Randle, 966
F.2d 1209, 1212 (7th Cir. 1992). Reliance on “vague, conclusory”
allegations is not sufficient to meet this standard. Id. at 1212.
But vague, conclusory allegations are exactly what Mr. DeWoody
offers in his motion. He alleges that the missing portion of the
disputed conversation contains exculpatory statements essential to
his entrapment defense, but does not say what those statements are.
Furthermore, he has not provided a supporting affidavit swearing to
those facts he does allege. Other courts have denied, without
hearing, motions to suppress on similar facts. See, e.g., United
States v. Mallard, No. 93 CR 566, 1994 WL 22958, at *2 (N.D. Ill.
Jan. 25, 1994) (Williams, J.); United States v. Robinzine, No. 93
CR 486, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15297, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22,
1993) (Plunkett, J.). Thus, the defendant has not met his burden of
making a prima facie showing of illegal government action
justifying suppression. of relevant evidence.

The motion to suppress electronic communications is DENIED.

ENTER "Done Z Buble

Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge

Dated: October aif 2002


-Minyle Order Fore (04/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Elaine E. Bucklo Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge * than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 CR 550-1 DATE 10/24/2002
CASE U.S.A. vs. DeWoody
TITLE
[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
f the motion being, L
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]}
Q) oO Brief in support of motion due
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due, . Reply to answer brief due _
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) ao [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] heid/continued to at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without} prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(n) Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) [1 FRCP41(a\(2).
(0) = [Other docket entry] /Defendant’s motion to suppress electronic communications is denied. Enter
Memorandum Opinion and Order.

dl @f (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. "Do Hea H
7 _| Nonotices required. umber of notices Ue

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

CCT 25 2002
Notified counsel by telephone. date doycorad

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

ig deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

aa late mailed notice

courtroom eost
deputy’s :
initials

‘MPJ

Date/time received in ~ x
central Clerk”s Office

mailing deputy initials



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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

Vv.
No. 02 CR 550

DOUGLAS DEWOODY,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Douglas DeWoody is charged with traveling across
state lines for the purpose of engaging in sex with a minor. He
moves to suppress electronic communications offered by the United
States on the grounds that the government maliciously failed to
record the initial contact between the defendant and a law
enforcement officer posing as a victim. Because Mr. DeWoody has
failed to make a prima facie showing of illegality, I deny the
motion without hearing.

I.

On February 13, 2002, Detective Timothy Holder of the Palos
Heights Police Department, using the screen name “VickiSuel4,”
entered an internet chat room called “I Love Older Men.” Mr.
DeWoody was also visiting this chat room, using the screen name
“Hot2trottttt.” Detective Holder and Mr. DeWoody began a private
conversation. Over the course of this and several subsequent

conversations, Mr. DeWoody, a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, began

33


making explicit plans to visit “VickiSuel4" in the Chicago area in
order to initiate a sexual relationship. Mr. DeWoody also attached
nude pictures of himself and pornographic images depicting underage
children to his e-mails. Mr. DeWoody was arrested after checking
into a hotel in Tinley Park, Illinois, where he had agreed to meet
“VickiSuel4.”% The belongings he brought with him to Illinois
included fifty condoms, lubricant, a video camera, a Polaroid
camera, a laptop containing child pornography, and a notebook
listing the internet screen names, physical attributes, and younger
siblings of some eighty other children.
Il.

The dispute at hand arises from the fact that the initial
portion of the first conversation between “VickieSuel4" and
“Hot2trottttt” was not recorded. The United States claims that this
omission was due to a technical problem with the software used by
the Palos Heights Police Department to record online chats. Mr.
DeWoody asserts that the police either deliberately chose not to
record the beginning of the conversation or later destroyed the
recording of that portion of the transcript, which allegedly
contained exculpatory evidence essential to an entrapment defense.
Mr. DeWoody claims that because the government acted in bad faith
to suppress evidence favorable to him, the entire electronic

transcript must be excluded.