Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Carl Campbell

December 5, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CARL CAMPBELL, A/K/A "NUTTY BOY," A/K/A CARL SMITH, A/K/A KARL CAMPBELL, A/K/A EARL CAMPBELL, A/K/A CARL MICHAEL, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Karen E. Schreier Chief Judge

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant, Carl Campbell, was indicted on two counts related to sex trafficking and prostitution. Docket 1. Campbell moves to suppress all of the evidence obtained as a result of a search and seizure that was conducted pursuant to warrant. Docket 29. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge John Simko, who issued a report and recommendation recommending denial of the motion. Docket 38. Campbell objects to that order. Docket 42. For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Simko's report and recommendation is adopted in its entirety, and the motion to suppress is denied.

BACKGROUND

The Sioux Falls police department began an investigation into prostitution in the Sioux Falls, South Dakota, area in May of 2011. The Department of Homeland Security and Special Agent Charla Aramayo became involved in the investigation shortly thereafter. In the course of her investigation, Aramayo interviewed an adult female known as "M.A." about her involvement with prostitution. At that time, M.A. made a number of allegations against Campbell, including that he had forced her into prostitution using violence or threats of violence.

M.A. told Aramayo that she and Campbell traveled to Wisconsin and Illinois for the purpose of engaging in prostitution in addition to the prostitution activities in the Sioux Falls area. Once M.A. and Campbell reached Illinois they stayed in an area known for prostitution. M.A. told Aramayo that she attempted to flee from Campbell's control one evening and encountered Illinois law enforcement during a traffic stop. M.A. told Illinois police about Campbell's control over her and her forced involvement in prostitution. M.A. told Aramayo that she then returned to South Dakota and eventually learned that Campbell was arrested and charged with prostitution-related offenses in Illinois.

Aramayo learned that Campbell was incarcerated in the Cook County jail for prostitution offenses in March of 2012. On March 22, 2012, Aramayo contacted the Cook County State's Attorney's Office and the Cook County Clerk of Courts and served upon them a grand jury subpoena that requested any and all evidence that was recovered in the investigation resulting in the arrest of Carl Campbell in Illinois on or about July 12, 2011.

On April 3, 2012, Aramayo contacted Detective Don Giuliani with the Franklin Park Police Department*fn1 to inquire about Campbell, M.A., and prostitution activities in Illinois in 2011. Giuliani was the police officer who interviewed M.A. after she was stopped in Illinois in an area known for prostitution. Giuliani stated that at the time of her traffic stop, M.A. provided information about Campbell and prostitution. Giuliani also stated that M.A. granted consent for Illinois law enforcement to search the hotel room*fn2 that she shared with Campbell. Upon entering the hotel room, law enforcement officers found Campbell. They conducted a search of the hotel room and seized evidence, including a laptop computer, multiple cell phones, and condoms, among other things. Giuliani also told Aramayo that a laptop computer was searched and evidence was discovered as to that computer's use of websites to advertise prostitution.

Also on April 3, 2012, Aramayo received a box of evidence from the Cook County State's Attorney's Office pursuant to her subpoena. Aramayo conducted an inventory of the items provided by Cook County, but she did not open any sealed bags. During her inventory, Aramayo noted the number of bags, whether they were sealed or unsealed, any labels, and descriptions of what she perceived the contents of the bags to be.

Based on that information, Aramayo composed an affidavit to request a warrant to search the items*fn3 seized by law enforcement in Illinois and subsequently sent to Aramayo by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. Aramayo stated that she believed the items contained evidence of Campbell's involvement in commercial sex trafficking and that "there is probable cause to believe that the cellular phones and laptop computer described above were used or attempted to be used to facilitate the illegal activity."

Docket 38-1 at 5. Aramayo requested to "seize all of the items described above to search the phone devices' media files, videos, text messages, call logs, address books, and any other stored information as well as the laptop computer for any evidence that pertains to sex trafficking and/or transportation for sexual activity and related crimes, more fully described in Attachment A hereto, incorporated herein by reference." Docket 38-1 at 5.

Magistrate Judge Simko issued a warrant for the search and seizure of Aramayo's requested items. Campbell was charged with one count of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion and one count of interstate transportation for prostitution on April 4, 2012. Docket 1. On September 20, 2012, Campbell moved to suppress the contents of Aramayo's search. Docket 29. Magistrate Judge Simko held an evidentiary hearing on the matter on October 3, 2012. Docket 34. Magistrate Judge Simko issued his report and recommendation on the motion to suppress on October 23, 2012, and he recommended that the motion to suppress be denied. Docket 38. On November 7, 2012, Campbell filed his objection to Magistrate Judge Simko's report and recommendation. Docket 42. The government did not respond.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), "when a party objects to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge concerning a dispositive matter, '[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.' " United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). De novo review in the context of reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation means a district court only "give[s] fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675 (1980) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly, the court will review the disputed portions of Magistrate Judge Simko's report and recommendation de novo.

DISCUSSION

I. Factual ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.