United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
Richard Mills, United States District Judge.
Pete Green filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment based on no
probable cause to arrest.
States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins has entered a
Report and Recommendation, wherein he recommends that the
motion be denied.
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
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.
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.
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
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 ...