Case 1:19-cr-00870-JMF Document 66 Filed 04/23/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
` :
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
` :
`
` :
`
` :
`
` :
`MUSTAPHA RAJI,
` :
`
` :
`
` :
`
` :
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19-CR-870 (JMF)
`
`ORDER
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
`
`
`
`Having reviewed the parties’ submissions regarding Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence
`
`from the two cell phones that were seized from his home during his arrest, see ECF No. 53, the Court
`
`agrees with the parties that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, see ECF No. 61, at 7 (conceding that
`
`“the need for a hearing appears to be moot”). That said, the Court will hear oral argument on the
`
`motion at the next pretrial conference on May 10, 2021.
`
`In particular, the parties should be prepared to address the following issues:
`
`(1) whether the information from 2018 relating to the alleged scheme and Defendant’s alleged co-
`conspirator was too stale to support probable cause for the phones’ seizure in December 2019,
`taking into account the digital nature of the evidence to be seized, see, e.g., United States v. Ali,
`870 F. Supp. 2d 10, 33-35 (D.D.C. 2012); and
`
`
`(2) whose knowledge is relevant for purposes of establishing probable cause to seize the phones,
`see, e.g., United States v. Armstrong, 554 F.3d 1159, 1163 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that in
`determining whether the incriminating nature of the object to be seized was immediately
`apparent, the court could “consider the collective knowledge of the officers executing the
`searches” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Gonzalez, 334 F. Supp. 2d 275,
`281 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (“The government has cited no cases holding that information known to
`law enforcement officers who are outside a premises may be imputed, absent prior
`communication or instructions, to agents conducting a search or effecting an arrest within the
`premises.”); United States v. Ling Zhen Hu, No. 07-CR-212A, 2010 WL 4451532, at *8
`(W.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2010) (“As the government correctly notes, law enforcement officers are
`entitled to rely upon the collective knowledge of all officers at the scene for the purposes of
`determining whether probable cause exists.”); cf. United States v. Colon, 250 F.3d 130, 135 (2d
`Cir. 2001) (“[B]y not tracing the information back to any person with the training to make a
`determination of reasonable suspicion and relying instead on the collective knowledge of ‘the
`department’ generally, the government’s argument takes the collective knowledge doctrine too
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00870-JMF Document 66 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`far afield of the reasons underlying its purpose.”)
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, no later than April 30, 2021, the Government is ORDERED to file a
`
`supplemental affidavit or affidavits — ideally from Special Agent Michael Ryan, see ECF No. 58, at 9
`
`n.5, or another witness with firsthand personal knowledge — detailing what information was known to
`
`the agents who were involved in the seizure, including but not limited to whether and to what extent
`
`any agent was aware, at the time of the seizure, of the following:
`
`• Defendant’s alleged use of email to send seemingly fraudulent loan documents to his co-
`conspirator, Nancy Martino-Jean, in August 2018, see ECF No. 58-2 (“Gov’t Proffer of
`Facts”), at ¶ 7;
`
`• Martino-Jean’s use of email and WhatsApp messages to perpetrate the alleged fraud, records of
`which she stated were stored on her phone as of September 2018, see ECF No. 58-4 (“Ryan
`Aff.”), at ¶ 10;
`
`• Defendant’s September 2018 text messages with a cooperating witness “regarding the
`disbursement of fraudulently-obtained funds,” see ECF No. 55-1 (“Mulloy Aff.”), ¶ 14;
`
`• Defendant’s telephone calls with a bank investigator regarding the transfers of funds in October
`and November 2019 (and whether there is any basis to believe that those calls were connected
`to the alleged fraud or otherwise criminal in nature), see ECF No. 58-3 (“Lai Aff.”), ¶ 9; and
`
`• Any other evidence that gave the agents “probable cause to believe that the [cell phones]
`contain[ed] or constitute[d] evidence.” United States v. Babilonia, 854 F.3d 163, 180 (2d Cir.
`2017).
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 23, 2021
`
`New York, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` __________________________________
`
`
` JESSE M. FURMAN
`
` United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`
`
`