Opinion ID: 655972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wood's Statements Made to Hudson

Text: 9 Wood argues Hudson's undercover investigation was the fruit of the illegal search of his home. Wood's theory, which he never had a chance to prove, is that the search of Wood's home unveiled some documents that mentioned Soland's Fitness Center. Hudson then called Soland and mentioned he had been referred by Wood. Soland confirmed Wood's status as a distributor, gave Hudson Wood's phone number, and the undercover officers then targeted Wood. None of this would have happened but for the illegal search, so Wood's statements to Hudson must be suppressed. The district court ruled that a hearing was unnecessary because, even assuming the truth of Wood's allegations, Wood was still a suspect because of the FDA's discovery in Arizona. Consequently, the FDA was free to pursue a new investigative tactic. Wood faults this reasoning by contending he was not a suspect at the time his home was searched. For proof, he offers the following testimony from Agent Williamson: 10 Q. In connection with the investigation that you were making, as I understand it, a company called Amino Discounters in Arizona, you desired, I take it, as I interpret your declaration, sir, to investigate further the matters as they would pertain to Mr. Wood; is that right, sir? 11 A. I don't understand your question. 12 Q. Well, you were interested in GHB so-called; right? 13 A. We were interested in a one pound shipment from Amino Discounters to the Shenandoah address. 14 Q. Of what substance? 15 A. That we didn't know. 16 Q. I see. Well, did you find out what it was? 17 A. That was the purpose of the investigation was to find out what the one pound substance consisted of, whether it was GHB or something else. 18 Q. This was your investigation of GHB, was it not, sir? 19 A. Yes, it's part of a GHB investigation. 20 This exchange does not suggest that Wood was not a suspect. More importantly, however, Wood's status as a suspect (or not) is not of constitutional import. Absent a showing ... that the government utilized illegally secured information to obtain more than defendants' identities, there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Sand, 541 F.2d 1370, 1376 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1103 (1977). Thus, a defendant cannot successfully claim that illegally seized information that causes an investigation to intensify bars all subsequently discovered evidence. Id. Law enforcement knew of Wood's identity and possible involvement in GHB distribution before the illegal search. 5 The statements would not be suppressed even if Wood's theory about how Hudson conducted his investigation were correct, so the district court did not err in refusing to hold a hearing on the matter.