Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20200116_0000019.CIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 12:34:40
Document Index: 230031104

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 851']

PETE GREEN, Defendant.
Defendant Pete Green filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment based on no probable cause to arrest.
United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins has entered a Report and Recommendation, wherein he recommends that the motion be denied.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.2, the Defendant has filed objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
On October 2, 2019, Defendant Pete Green was indicted for distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count One); possession with intent to distribute a fentanyl analog, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) (Count Two); possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count Three); possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1)(B)(i), and (c)(1)(A)(iii) (Count Four); felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count Five); Forfeiture Allegations; and Special Findings in connection with Count Two, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, that Defendant was convicted of murder in Cook County, Illinois, Circuit Court No. 1996CR2614402.
The Defendant claims the Affidavit in Support of the Arrest Warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. He states that the confidential source (“CS”) did not testify or appear before the issuing judge for the search warrant. The Defendant acknowledges that the CS has previously provided reliable and accurate information related to drug trafficking in the Springfield, Illinois area. However, he states that no further information or details are given. It is not stated whether any prosecutions resulted and, if so, the result of those prosecutions. Accordingly, the Defendant contends that the Affidavit was insufficient, and the Indictment should be dismissed.
Regarding the Affidavit, the magistrate judge found as follows:
1. The CS provided valuable information in the past.
2. The CS told law enforcement officials that a person named “Paris” provided the CS with 35 grams of heroin. The CS provided law enforcement officials with the 35 grams of heroin.
3. The CS made recorded telephone calls with “Paris” which established the following:
• “Paris” instructed the CS to sell 18 grams of the heroin for $1, 500.00;
• CS told “Paris” that he had $1, 900.00 in proceeds from the sale of some of the heroin; and
• “Paris” and CS arranged for a meeting so that CS could give “Paris” $1, 900.00 that the CS told “Paris” was ...