United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS
E. JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE
Pending
before the Court are the following motions filed by Defendant
Ryan Parks (“Defendant”): Motion for Disclosure
of Rule 404 and 609 Evidence, (ECF No. 26), Motion to
Suppress Tangible and Derivative Evidence from the Search
Warrants, (ECF No. 49), Motion for Severance, (ECF No. 51),
and Motion to Suppress Tangible and Derivative Evidence from
the Arrest Warrant, (ECF No. 63). For the reasons discussed
herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and
DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion for
Disclosure of Rule 404 and 609 Evidence, (ECF No. 26), and
DENIES Defendants' other motions. (ECF
Nos. 49, 51, 63.)
I.BACKGROUND
Defendant
is named in a four-count superseding indictment charging him
with three counts of Sex Trafficking of a Minor in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), (b)(2), and (c) and one count of
Use of Interstate Facilities to Promote an Enterprise
Involving a Prostitution Offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1594(d). (ECF No. 43.) The following facts were
derived from Defendant's briefs and testimony adduced
during the June 26, 2019 pretrial motions hearing.
On
November 21, 2017, Baltimore County, Maryland law enforcement
officers responded to a report that a missing juvenile, A.Z.,
was located at a hotel in Baltimore County. (ECF No. 49-1 at
2.) Officers recovered A.Z. and placed her in a juvenile
facility. (Id.) Maryland State Police Officer
Christopher Heid (“Cpl. Heid”) and Detective Chad
Lettau (“Det. Lettau”) then conducted a forensic
interview of A.Z., in which she stated that she met Defendant
through social media platforms Tagged.com and Facebook,
initially only knowing him as “Dineoro, ” and
that he discussed with her making money through prostitution
by placing ads on Backpage.com. (See id.) A.Z.
further stated that Defendant arranged for her to come to
Baltimore, took pictures of her for prostitution ads, and
instructed her on how to communicate with her prostitution
“dates.” (See id.) A.Z. alleged that
Defendant initially took most of the money she earned from
her “dates.” (See id.)
While
Cpl. Heid continued to interview A.Z., Det. Lettau searched
Tagged.com and Facebook for the name “Dinero.”
Det. Lettau informed Cpl. Heid that he was not able to find
anyone on Tagged.com with that name. Det. Lettau continued to
search Facebook for the name “Dinero” and
eventually discovered Defendant's Facebook profile page.
Det. Lettau showed the profile picture from Defendant's
page to A.Z. and she identified the man in the picture as
“Dinero.”[1]
On
December 18, 2017, a Baltimore County Court Commissioner
issued an arrest warrant for Defendant for Human Trafficking
and various prostitution offenses. (Id. at 2-3.) On
January 10, 2018, Maryland State Police arrested Defendant
and seized his cell phone, which was on his person at the
time of his arrest. (Id. at 3.)
Following
their interview with A.Z., officers interviewed another
witness, Y.J., who was currently in the custody of Baltimore
County Department of Corrections. (Id.) Y.J. stated
that Defendant was a pimp who had females working for him as
prostitutes. (See id.) She also identified A.Z. from
the Backpage.com ads. (Id.)
Defendant
was subsequently indicted in federal court and his state
charges were dismissed. (See ECF No. 53 at 10.)
Following the state charge dismissal, Cpl. Heid and FBI
Special Agent Patrick Winn took Defendant into federal
custody. (See id.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
“The
burden of proof is on the party who seeks to suppress the
evidence.” United States v. Hunter, 63
F.Supp.3d 614, 619 (E.D. Va. 2104) (citing United States
v. Dickerson, 655 F.2d 559, 561 (4th Cir. 1981)). If the
defendant provides a basis for the motion to suppress, the
burden shifts to the prosecution to prove the challenged
evidence's admissibility by a preponderance of the
evidence. See id.; see also United States v.
Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 177 n.14 (1974). During a
pretrial hearing on a motion to suppress, “the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given the
evidence, together with the inferences, deductions and
conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, are all matters to
be determined by the trial judge.” Hunter, 63
F.Supp.3d at 619 (quoting United States v. McKneely,
6 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (10th Cir. 1993)) (internal citation
omitted); see also Columbus-Am. Disc. Grp. v. Atl. Mut.
Ins. Co., 56 F.3d 556, 567 (4th Cir. 1995) (“[I]n
the usual case, the factfinder is in a better position to
make judgments about the reliability of some forms of
evidence than a reviewing body acting solely on the basis of
a written record of that evidence. Evaluation of the
credibility of a live witness is the most obvious
example.” (quoting Concrete Pipe & Prods. of
Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S.
Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993))).
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
404(b) Evidence
Defendant
requests that the Court enter an Order directing the
Government to disclose its intention to use any evidence of
crimes, wrongs or acts allegedly committed by Defendant
and/or any unindicted co-conspirator, or any other
information under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) or 609.
(ECF No. 26.) In response, the Government moves to admit the
following evidence under Rule 404(b):
(1) That the defendant had sexual intercourse with minors
under the age of 18; (2) that the defendant obstructed
justice by telling a minor victim to delete evidence on her
phone, attempting to remove or conceal the “chip”
within the phone, and attempting to destroy the phone by
banging it hard enough to damage the device; (3) that the
defendant physically assaulted Y.J. and had a No-Contact
order against him at the time he trafficked Y.J.; (4) that
the defendant committed other, uncharged sex trafficking
crimes, including trafficking Y.J. in the months before his
prostitution enterprise began in February of 2017 and that
another victim of his, A.T., was a minor at the time he
trafficked her; and (5) that the defendant regularly provided
marijuana to, and smoked marijuana with, the victims working
for him in his prostitution enterprise.
(ECF No. 53 at 16-17.) In reply, Defendants seeks to exclude
this evidence. (ECF No. 62 at 1-6.)
Federal
Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides the following:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible
to prove the character of a person in order to show action in
conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for
other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake
or accident.
Rule
404(b) is “an ‘inclusionary rule' which
‘admits all evidence of other crimes relevant to an
issue in a trial except that which tends to prove only
criminal disposition.'” United States v.
Mark, 943 F.2d 444, 447 (4th Cir. 1991) (quoting
United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83, 85 (4th Cir.
1980))). “To be admissible under Rule 404(b), prior bad
acts evidence . . . must be relevant to an issue other than
character, . . . necessary to prove an element of the crime
charged, . . . [and] reliable.” United States v.
Blauvelt, 638 F.3d 281, 292 (4th Cir. 2011). Further,
the “probative value [of the evidence] must not be
substantially outweighed by its prejudicial nature.”
Id.; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 403
(“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of .
. . prejudice . . . .”). The Court will address each
piece of evidence the Government seeks to admit separately.
1.
Defendant's Sexual Contact with Minors
As
stated above, the Government seeks to admit evidence that
Defendant had sex with at least two of the minor victims,
A.Z. and S.W. The Government argues that this evidence is
intrinsic to its case-in-chief, is intertwined with the
charges, and is therefore outside of the scope of 404(b).
(ECF No. 53 at 20.) The Government further argues that this
evidence is admissible under 404(b) as it is probative of
Defendant's knowledge that the victims were underage as
he had a reasonable opportunity to observe them unclothed.
(See Id. at 21.)
“Evidence
of uncharged conduct is intrinsic to the charged offense and
not barred by Rule 404(b) if it ‘arose out of the same
series of transactions as the charged offense, or if [it] is
necessary to complete the story of the crime on
trial.”' United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d
306, 316 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and
alteration omitted). Evidence is also intrinsic if it is
“necessary to provide context relevant to the criminal
charges.” United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d
302, 326 (4th Cir. 2009). Intrinsic evidence must also
...