USA v. Sinnawi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, )
) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS
)
vs. )
) Case No. 1:19-cr-161
Michael K. Sinnawi, )
)
Defendant. )
Before the Court is the Defendant’s amended motion to suppress filed on December 10,
2019. See Doc. No. 72. The Government filed a response in opposition to the motion on
December 23, 2019. See Doc. No. 82. A hearing on the motion was held on January 15, 2020.
The Government filed a post-hearing brief on January 22, 2020. See Doc. No. 88. For the
reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 14, 2019, DEA Special Agent Jeffrey Buckles applied for a search warrant for
room 202 at the Country Inn & Suites in Bismarck, North Dakota. See Doc. No. 82-1. In his
affidavit in support of the search warrant, Agent Buckles stated as follows:
4. On 08-13-2019 Your Affiant received information from the Country Inn Suites
located at 3205 North 14th Street in Bismarck, Burleigh County, North Dakota,
advising that two individuals had been staying at the hotel in room 202 since 08-
04-2019 and renewing their room rental on the internet, sometimes daily.
5. Your Affiant knows from training and experience that it is common for drug
traffickers to renew their room on a sometimes daily basis as they are awaiting
money from customers, or have not sold all of their product yet, or sometimes
both.
1
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 12

6. The two individuals registered with the hotel as staying in room 202 are Michael
SINNAWI . . . and Antonio HERFY . . . both from Michigan. The two men told the hotel
staff they are in Bismarck opening a “tobacco or vape” shop. The hotel staff advised that
the two men stay at the hotel most days and sometimes do not come out of their room
until the afternoon hours.
7. SINNAWI has criminal history to include 2004: Malicious Destruction of Personal
Property/Damage to Property . . . 2005: Assault with Dangerous Weapon . . . 2005:
Receiving or Concealing Stolen Property . . . 2005: Larceny . . . 2006: Malicious
Destruction of Personal Property . . . 2006: Assault . . . 2007: Malicious Destruction of
Personal Property . . . 2008: Larceny . . . 2011: Domestic Violence . . . .
8. HERFY has criminal history to include 2012: Receiving and Concealing Stolen
Property . . . 2016: Dangerous Drugs . . . .
9. According to the CLEAR Law Enforcement Database, SINNAWI has shared address
history with Thaer GARMOO in Oak Park, Michigan. Thaer GARMOO is related to
Mario GARMOO, who has a current federal case, District of North Dakota, for
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Oxycodone, and Possession with Intent to
Distribute Oxycodone, following an arrest in March 2019 where he was found to be in
possession of approximately 100 Oxycodone Hydrochloride pills. During a post arrest
interview with Your Affiant, Mario GARMOO advised he is from Detroit, Michigan, and
sells pills in/around the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. According to Mario
GARMOO, Thaer GARMOO goes by “NUTBALL” and he has come to North Dakota in
the past to sell pills alongside Mario GARMOO. Several text messages were observed on
GARMOO’s cellular phone which show the GARMOO’s working together to sell pills
and marijuana.
10. Your Affiant has executed search warrants at the County Inn Suites in Bismarck on
two separate occasions and arrested two individuals from Michigan, both who had large
amounts of Oxycodone Hydrochloride pills. Individuals from Michigan have been
coming to North Dakota for several years to sell pills as they can be obtained cheaply in
cities such as Detroit and later re-sold in North Dakota for profit. Your Affiant has
interviewed several drug traffickers from Michigan who have advised they can obtain
Oxycodone Hydrochloride pills for $20.00-$25.00 per pill and later re-sell the pills for
$60.00-$75.00 in Bismarck or on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.
11. Your Affiant conducted surveillance in the area of the Country Inn Suites on 08-13-
2019 and observed a male on the Northside of the parking lot meeting with various
individuals. On one occasion, the male met with a female (later identified as Emily
DAVIS) who exited a grey in color Ford Focus . . . and went into the hotel with him
while the driver of the vehicle remained inside the vehicle. A short time later, the female
was observed exiting the hotel and getting back in the vehicle and leaving. A short time
later, a different vehicle, a Chevrolet Cobalt . . . was observed driving suspiciously in the
2
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 12

area of the Country Inn Suites, doing multiple laps in the parking lot and driving
erratically. A traffic stop was conducted of the Chevrolet Cobalt by the Bismarck Police
Department and following a search, several marijuana smoking devices were located.
Emily DAVIS was a passenger of the Chevrolet Cobalt vehicle, indicating she had
switched vehicles from the Ford Focus to the Chevrolet Cobalt. DAVIS denied ever
being at the Country Inn Suites despite repeated questioning. Another individual in the
vehicle, Ty THOMAS, who was the driver, indicated he had taken DAVIS to the Country
Inn Suites to meet with “her guy”. THOMAS did not elaborate on what he meant by
saying “her guy”.
12. Your Affiant knows Emily DAVIS to be involved with trafficking pills and heroin.
DAVIS is also known to the agents on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation as being a
drug trafficker operating in that area as well. Your Affiant arrested Kevon SAVAGE in
April 2019 and during an interview, SAVAGE advised Your Affiant he had sold DAVIS
approximately 350 Oxycodone Hydrochloride pills historically.
13. Following agents observing DAVIS meeting the unidentified male, Your Affiant
followed up with hotel staff, who advised the male had been observed in surveillance
video coming from and going to room 202, the same room being rented by SINNAWI
and HERFY. The male has not been identified.
14. Hotel staff also provided Your Affiant with [a] North Dakota license plate . . . which
is registered to Devin YELLOW WOLF. Hotel staff advised YELLOW WOLF’s vehicle
had visited the hotel and a male went to room 202, coming out a short time later and
leaving. YELLOW WOLF is known to agents on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation as
hosting individuals from Michigan at his trailer in Mandaree, North Dakota. The males
from Michigan sell pills out of YELLOW WOLF’s trailer. A federal search warrant has
previously been conducted on YELLOW WOLF’s trailer and he was found to be in
possession of controlled substances and US Currency. YELLOW WOLF also has a 2014
conviction for Possession of Oxycodone . . . .
See Doc. No. 82-1.
Based on Agent Buckles’ affidavit, a North Dakota state district court judge issued a
search warrant for room 202 at the Country Inn & Suites. The search warrant was executed and
law enforcement officers allegedly found approximately 450 oxycodone pills and $45,000 in
United States currency. See Doc. No. 25. Sinnawi was charged with conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, and possession with intent to distribute oxycodone.
Sinnawi now seeks to suppress the evidence found during the search of room 202.
3
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 12

II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
The Fourth Amendment provides the “right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also United States v. Jones, 269 F.3d 919, 924 (8th Cir. 2001). The
United States Supreme Court has made it clear the Fourth Amendment establishes a
“reasonableness” standard. “The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is
always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a
citizen’s personal security.’” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 (1977) (quoting
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968)).
A. PROBABLE CAUSE
Sinnawi contends there was an insufficient basis for the state court judge to find probable
cause to issue the search warrant for his hotel room. The Government contends probable cause
existed for issuance of the search warrant.
The Fourth Amendment requires that law enforcement officers secure a warrant based
upon a finding of probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate before conducting a
search. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967); United States v. Alberts, 721 F.2d 636,
638 (8th Cir. 1983). A warrant must be supported by probable cause, which “exists if the
warrant application and affidavit describe circumstances showing a fair probability that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place . . . .” United States v.
Keele, 589 F.3d 940, 943 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Montes-Medina, 570 F.3d
1052, 1059 (8th Cir. 2009)). “Probable cause is ‘a fluid concept – turning on the assessment of
4
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 4 of 12

probabilities in particular factual contexts – not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of
legal rules.’” Walden v. Carmack, 156 F.3d 861, 870 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Illinois v. Gates,
462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983)). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained:
The court issuing a search warrant must “make a practical, commonsense decision
whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him,
including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay
information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will
be found in a particular place.”
United States v. Carter, 413 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238).
Probable cause can be based on a law enforcement officer’s observations. United States
v. Terry, 305 F.3d 818, 822-23 (8th Cir. 2002). More important, after a judicial officer has
issued a search warrant upon a finding of probable cause, “that finding deserves great deference.”
Walden, 156 F.3d at 870; see also United States v. Grant, 490 F.3d 627, 631 (8th Cir. 2007)
(“Whether probable cause to issue a search warrant has been established is determined by
considering the totality of the circumstances, and resolution of the question by an issuing judge
should be paid great deference by reviewing courts”) (internal quotations omitted). The affidavit
in support of the search warrant application is “judged on the adequacy of what it does contain,
not on what it lacks, or on what a critic might say should have been added.” United States v.
Daigle, No. 18-2603, 2020 WL 201722, at *3 (8th Cir. Jan. 14, 2020).
Where the probable cause for issuance of a warrant is based on information supplied by
an informant, the core question in assessing probable cause is whether the information is reliable.
United States v. O’Dell, 766 F.3d 870, 874 (8th Cir. 2014). There are several ways to establish
the reliability of a source and the source’s information. One manner is independent
corroboration of information provided by the source. United States v. Keys, 721 F.3d 512, 518
5
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 5 of 12

(8th Cir. 2013). When some information provided by a source, even an anonymous source, is
corroborated, then it may be inferred that uncorroborated information is reliable. Id.; United
States v. Buchanan, 574 F.3d 554, 562 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. LaMorie, 100 F.3d 547,
553 (8th Cir. 1996). This includes corroboration of minor innocent details. Buchanan, 574 F.3d
at 563.
Information from an informant that is based upon first-hand knowledge is given greater
weight. United States v. Robertson, 39 F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Briscoe,
574 F.2d 406, 409 (8th Cir. 1978). A face-to-face meeting with the informant may also enhance
reliability of information as the officer may assess the credibility of the informant. Robertson, 39
F.3d at 893. Information may be sufficiently reliable to support a probable cause finding if the
person supplying the information has a track record of supplying reliable information or if it is
corroborated by independent evidence. Id. If information from an informant is shown to be
reliable because of independent corroboration, then it is a permissible inference that the
informant is reliable and that other information the informant provides, though uncorroborated, is
also reliable. United States v. Edmiston, 46 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 1995).
Known informants are given more credence than anonymous or confidential informants
because, in part, they can be held responsible if the allegations turn out to be fabricated. United
States v. Solomon, 432 F.3d 824, 827-28 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266,
270 (2000)); see also United States v. Stevens, 530 F.3d 714, 718-19 (8th Cir. 2008) (known,
identified informant who provides first-person account of information is entitled to greater
reliability); LaMorie, 100 F.3d at 553 (corroboration of the information by independent
6
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 6 of 12

investigation is more important in a case involving a confidential or anonymous informant than
with a known individual).
The affidavit in support of the application for a search warrant of room 202 reveals that
Agent Buckles was informed by hotel staff that two individuals had been staying in room 202
since August 4, 2019, a period of nine days, and they had been renewing their room rental on the
internet, sometimes daily. Hotel staff further advised that the two occupants of room 202 “stay at
the hotel most days and sometimes do not come out of their room until the afternoon hours.”
Based on his training and experience, Agent Buckles recognized that “it is common for drug
traffickers to renew their room on a sometimes daily basis as they are awaiting money from
customers, or have not sold all of their product yet, or sometimes both.” Further, the source of
information was not an anonymous tipster, but was identified as hotel staff. A hotel employee,
unlike the anonymous tipster, can be held responsible in the event that the allegations turn out to
be fabricated. See Solomon, 432 F.3d at 827-28. Thus, the information is entitled to a greater
degree of reliability. See Stevens, 530 F.3d at 718-19 (known, identified informant who provides
first-person account of information is entitled to greater reliability); LaMorie, 100 F.3d at 553
(corroboration of the information by independent investigation is more important in a case
involving a confidential or anonymous informant than with a known individual).
Agent Buckles also explained how the two registered guests’ connection to the State of
Michigan was significant to him, stating, “Individuals from Michigan have been coming to North
Dakota for several years to sell pills as they can be obtained cheaply in cities such as Detroit and
later re-sold in North Dakota for profit.” The affidavit also provided that Agent Buckles
interviewed several drug traffickers from Michigan who advised him they could obtain
7
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 7 of 12

oxycodone pills for $20-25 per pill and resell them in Bismarck or on the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation for $60-75 per pill. Accordingly, the state court judge could have drawn the
reasonable inference that Michigan was a “source state” for narcotics, in particular, oxycodone
pills.
Agent Buckles also explained how the activity at this particular hotel and by these
specific occupants was significant to him. He stated he previously executed two search warrants
at the Country Inn & Suites which resulted in the seizure of large quantities of oxycodone pills
and the arrests of individuals from Michigan. He identified the occupants’ criminal history,
including Antonio Herfy’s two prior drug related incidents out of Michigan: (1)
Delivery/Manufacturing Marijuana, and (2) Dangerous Drugs. See Doc. No. 82-1, ¶ 8. This
prior history was relevant to the probable cause determination. See United States v. McIntyre,
646 F.3d 1107, 1115 (8th Cir. 2011) (prior drug arrests); United States v. Reinholz, 245 F.3d
765, 776 (8th Cir. 2001) (prior drug record).
In addition, the affidavit contained Agent Buckles’ and other law enforcement officers’
observations corroborating these initial indicators of drug trafficking, specifically by connecting
persons occupying room 202 with known users and distributors of oxycodone pills. One such
individual was Emily Davis. Agent Buckles noted in his affidavit that he knew Davis to be
involved with trafficking oxycodone pills and heroin. In April 2019, he arrested an individual,
Kevon Savage, who stated he had sold approximately 350 oxycodone pills to Davis. The
affidavit also provides that agents on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation know Davis to be a
drug trafficker operating in that area as well. On August 13, 2019, Agent Buckles observed a
male, later identified by hotel staff as someone “coming from and going to room 202,” meeting
8
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 8 of 12

with Davis in the parking lot of the hotel. The affidavit reveals that the male and Davis entered
the hotel, while the driver of the vehicle that Davis arrived in remained inside the vehicle. After
a short period of time, Davis exited the hotel and returned to the vehicle. Soon after, Agent
Buckles observed a different vehicle driving suspiciously near the hotel in that it was “doing
multiple laps in the parking lot and driving erratically.” Law enforcement officers initiated a
traffic stop of the vehicle, resulting in a search and the location of several marijuana smoking
devices. Davis was a passenger in the stopped vehicle and told officers she had switched
vehicles; however, she denied ever being at the Country Inn & Suites, despite repeated
questioning. The driver of the vehicle, Ty Thomas, told officers he had taken Davis to the
Country Inn & Suites to meet with “her guy.”
Agent Buckles’ affidavit provided more than sufficient information from which the state
court judge could reasonably infer and conclude that Emily Davis was at the hotel to obtain
opiate pills from the occupants of room 202. First, her brief stay during the first stop and return
shortly thereafter was indicative of drug trafficking activity. United States v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d
858, 859 (8th Cir. 2000) (staying at residence short time is activity consistent with drug dealing).
Second, the erratic and suspicious driving behavior upon her return was suggestive that drug
trafficking was afoot. See United States v. Nolen, 536 F.3d 834, 841 (8th Cir. 2008). Finally,
Davis’ blatant lie to officers about her prior encounter at the hotel was relevant to the judge’s
assessment of her activity. See United States v. Ameling, 328 F.3d 443, 448-49 (8th Cir. 2003)
(false statements and inconsistent stories to officers among factors relied upon to find probable
cause).
9
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 9 of 12

Additionally, the affidavit provides that hotel staff informed Agent Buckles that Devin
Yellow Wolf’s vehicle was at the hotel, and a male from that vehicle went into room 202, exiting
a short time later. According to the affidavit, Yellow Wolf has a 2014 conviction for possession
of oxycodone in state district court. Further, agents on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation had
direct knowledge that Yellow Wolf allowed drug traffickers from Michigan to sell oxycodone
pills out of his trailer. In fact, law enforcement officers had previously executed a federal search
warrant on the trailer, finding controlled substances and United States currency. Similar to
Davis’ activity, the state court judge could reasonably infer this conduct was indicative of drug
trafficking activity. See Hawkins, 215 F.3d at 859; United States v. Kruse, 603 Fed. Appx. 512,
515 (8th Cir. 2015) (vehicles belonging to known drug users outside defendant’s house supported
probable cause finding).
Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds there was more than a
sufficient basis for the state court judge to find probable cause for the issuance of the search
warrant for room 202 at the Country Inn & Suites.
B. GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION
The Government also contends that even if probable cause did not exist for the issuance
of the search warrant the search should be upheld because law enforcement officers acted in good
faith and reasonably relied on the search warrant. The United States Supreme Court outlined a
“good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
The exclusionary rule “operates as ‘a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth
Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect [against officer misconduct], rather than
10
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 10 of 12

a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.’” Leon, 468 U.S. at 906 (citing United
States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974)). Under the good faith exception, if the affidavit
for a search warrant lacks probable cause, evidence obtained in the search should not be
suppressed if the officers relied in good faith on a search warrant issued by a neutral and
detached magistrate, and their reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable. United States
v. Farlee, 757 F.3d 810, 819 (8th Cir. 2014); see also United States v. Koons, 300 F.3d 985, 990-
91 (8th Cir. 2002) (“[w]hen a search warrant is not supported by probable cause, any evidence
obtained as a result is generally inadmissible, but there is an exception for evidence obtained by
an officer who relied in objective good faith on a search warrant”) (citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367
U.S. 643, 655-57 (1961); Leon, 468 U.S. at 922). There are four situations in which law
enforcement could not reasonably rely in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate:
(1) If the issuing magistrate or judge was misled by information in an affidavit
that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for
his reckless disregard for the truth;
(2) The issuing official wholly abandoned his judicial role;
(3) The warrant was based on an affidavit that was so lacking in indicia of
probable cause that an officer’s belief in its existence is entirely
unreasonable; and
(4) The warrant is so facially deficient that officers executing the warrant
cannot reasonably presume the warrant to be valid.
Leon, 468 U.S. at 923.
There is nothing in the record before the Court which, in any manner, reveals that Agent
Buckles, or any other law enforcement officers involved in the search, did not act in good faith in
obtaining and executing the search warrant. The Court has already determined the affidavit
submitted by Agent Buckles was sufficient to establish probable cause. Agent Buckles’ affidavit
11
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 11 of 12

detailed the information supplied, his personal observations of activity at the hotel as connected
to room 202, historical information about the occupants, and what all of this information led him
to conclude based on his experience, education, and training. As a result, Agent Buckles could
reasonably rely upon the judge’s determination of probable cause. Further, the record is devoid
of any evidence that Agent Buckles offered misleading testimony in his affidavit, that the state
court judge abandoned his or her judicial role, or that the search warrant itself was facially
deficient in any way. The Court finds the actions of the law enforcement officers were at all
times conducted in good faith reliance on the search warrant approved by the state court judge.
See United States v. Carter, 413 F.3d 712, 715 (8th Cir. 2005) (refusing to suppress evidence
where officers relied in objective good faith on a search warrant). The suppression of any
evidence seized in relation to the search warrant issued is unwarranted.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record, the parties’ arguments, and relevant
case law. The Court finds the totality of the circumstances show probable cause existed to
support the issuance of the search warrant and that officers conducted the search in good faith
reliance on the search warrant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to suppress (Doc. No. 72)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2020.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
12
Case 1:19-cr-00161-DLH Document 92 Filed 02/10/20 Page 12 of 12