Page 37 - March April 2021 TPA Journal

probable cause relating to the subscriber. SEARCH & SEIZURE, wiretap warrant in
Subsection (c) merely requires that warrants drug case.
comply with, as relevant here, “[s]tate warrant
procedures.” And subsection (d) authorizes Defendant-Appellant Troy “99” Kendrick was
disclosure of otherwise-protected information upon charged and convicted of conspiracy to distribute
a “showing that there are reasonable grounds to cocaine base (“crack cocaine”) and possession of a
believe that the . . . information sought [is] relevant firearm by a convicted felon. He now contests the
and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Government’s Title III wiretap that intercepted
The warrant issued by Judge Jefferson complied calls and text messages from his phone, the
with these provisions. sufficiency of the evidence on his drug conspiracy
Beaudion’s SCA argument faces another conviction, the district court’s sentencing
problem: “[S]uppression is not a remedy for a enhancement for possessing a firearm, and the
violation of the Stored Communications Act.” effectiveness of counsel. We affirm.
Congress could not have been clearer on this point.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2708. Wiretap and Search Warrant
Beaudion also argues that the district court The wiretap events are drawn from Drug
should have granted his motion to suppress because Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent
the officers who intercepted him committed an (SA) Scott Arseneaux’s supporting warrant
unconstitutional traffic stop. According to affidavits.
Beaudion, we must find a Fourth Amendment 1. The Garrick Jones Surveillance and
violation because “there is not a shred of evidence Wiretap. The DEA and St. John Parish Sheriff’s
in the record of the reason the patrol officer Office (SJPSO) initially investigated Kendrick’s
[stopped] the car.” In fact, he observes, “[t]here is co-defendant Garrick “Gnu” Jones and used a
not a shred of evidence about the stop” at all. reliable confidential source/informant to surveil
Beaudion’s argument is his own undoing. “The Jones distributing crack cocaine. The narcotics
party seeking suppression has the burden of transactions involving the informant and Jones
proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that occurred on January 4 and February 17 of 2016,
the evidence in question was obtained in violation and on March 10, the informant was involved in a
of his Fourth Amendment rights.” Beaudion never physical altercation with Jones. • January 4: The
challenged the constitutionality of the traffic stop DEA and SJPSO officials witnessed the informant
in the district court. And he offers no argument that contact Jones at his phone number, Telephone #1,1
we should overlook his forfeiture under plainerror to arrange meetings to purchase crack cocaine. The
review. AFFIRMED. informant met with Jones at Jones’s Reserve,
Louisiana home and purchased 12 grams of crack
U.S. v. Beaudion, No. 19-30635, 5th Circuit. cocaine. According to the informant, he witnessed
Nov. 11, 2020. Jones initially meet Kendrick in the front of Jones’s
home to purchase crack cocaine before
subsequently selling the narcotics to the informant.
• February 17: The DEA and SJPSO again
observed the informant contact Jones (via
Telephone #1) to arrange a meeting to purchase a
half-ounce of crack cocaine from Jones. Once the
informant and Jones agreed to meet, the DEA and

March/April 2021 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 33