Motion to suppress evidence — United States v. Jackson (C.D. Cal.) (C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:23-cr-00210-DSF · Doc. 33 · 2024-04-04 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHAWKY LAW 
Tarek Shawky (S.B.# 245312)  
871 E. Washington Blvd., #205 
Pasadena CA 91104 
Telephone: (323) 393-3301 
Email: TShawky@Shawkylaw.com 
Attorney for Bobby Joe Jackson 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
vs. 
 
BOBBY JOE JACKSON 
 
Case No. 2:23-cr-00210 
NOTICE OF MOTION AND 
MOTION TO SUPPRESS 
EVIDENCE PER RULE 41(h) OF 
THE FEDERAL RULES OF 
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 
 
TO THE HONORABLE DALE S. FISCHER, US DISTRICT COURT 
JUDGE, THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND CLERK OF THE 
COURT, please take notice that Mr. Bobby Joe Jackson, by and through counsel 
submits the following notice of motion and motion to suppress evidence pursuant 
to Rule 41(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion is based on 
this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities and any additional 
argument that may be presented at the time of the hearing. 
 
Date:   
 
  
 
 
 
 
Respectfully Submitted, 
 
  
_____________________ 
Tarek Shawky 
Attorney for Bobby Jackson 
 
April 4, 2024
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 1 of 17   Page ID #:131

 
 
2 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
                            Page   
I. 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………….…….……………..3 
II. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………….….…………….4 
III. 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES………………7 
IV. 
ARGUMENTS 
A. THE EVIDENCE SEIZED AND INVENTORIED IN THE US 
PRIVATE VAULTS CASE WAS DEEMED UNLAWFULLY 
SEIZED AND PROHIBITED FROM BEING USED IN ANY 
INVESTIGATION, THAT SAME EVIDENCE WAS UASED 
AGAINST MR. JACKSON AND MUST BE EXCLUDED AS 
FRUIT 
OF 
THE 
POISONOUS 
TREE 
………………………………………………………………...……7 
B. WHILE MR. JACKSON WAS ON PROBATION AT THE TIME 
OF HIS SEARCH AND ARREST, HE STILL MAINTAINS HIS 
RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND 
SEIZURE 
………………………………………………….…………………11 
C. MR. JACKSON HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE 
SEARCH BASED ON DERIVATIVE AND VICARIOUS 
STANDING ……………………………………………………...13 
V. 
CONCLUSION……………………………...…………………….……16 
VI. 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………18 
VII. 
EXHBIT A ………………………………………………………...…..... 
VIII. 
EXHBIT B …………………………………………....…………….…... 
IX. 
DECLARATION OF BOBBY JACKSON…………………………... 
 
 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 2 of 17   Page ID #:132

 
 
3 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES  
CASES                                                                                                          PAGES 
Frimmel Mgmt., LLC v. United States, (9th Cir. 2018) 897 F.3d 1045, 1051…11 
Hair v. United States, (1961) 289 F.2d 894, 897……………………………….14 
Jones v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 257, 261, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697..14 
Mapp v. Ohio, supra, 367 U.S. at pp. 646-660…………………………………..9 
McDonald v. United, States (1948) 335 U.S. 451…………………………..13,14 
Nelson v. United, States (1953) 208 F.2d 505, 514…………………………14,15 
People v. Williams, (1988) 45 Cal.3d, 126,……………………………………..9 
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848, 126 S. Ct. 2193, 165 L. Ed. 2d 250 
(2006) …………………………………………………………………………..12 
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,(1920) 40 S.Ct.182, 183...................16  
Snitko v. United States, (9th Cir. 2024) 90 F.4th1250………….....…4,5,6,7,8,9,13 
Stone v. Powell, (1976) 428 U. S. 465, 492……………………………………11 
Terry v. Ohio, (1968) 392 U. S. 1, 12)………………...……………………….10 
United States v. King,(9th Cir. 2013) 711 F.3d 986, 990…………….……..11,12 
United States v. Knights,  (2001) 534 U.S. 112,114…………………………...12 
Utah v. Strieff, (2016) 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2061…………………………………..11 
Weeks v. United States, (1914) 232 U. S. 383, 394……………………………11 
Wong Sun v. United States, (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 488)………….….....….11,15,16 
STATUTES                                                                       
18 U.S.C. 1349………………………………………………………….……….4 
18 U.S.C. 1028A…………………………………………………………….……..4 
FEDERAL RULES 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b)………………………………………4 
 
 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 3 of 17   Page ID #:133

 
 
4 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS 
Mr. Bobby Jackson is alleged to have committed one count of conspiracy to 
commit bank fraud in violation of 18 USC 1349, and one count of unlawful 
possession, transfer and use of the personal identification of another in violation of 
18 USC 1028A. The conduct is alleged to have occurred on or before July 22, 
2022.  
Federal agents first learned of Mr. Jackson’s alleged misconduct in this case 
during an investigation of US Private Vaults (USPV), a business that rented safety 
deposit boxes in Beverly Hills. The government obtained a warrant to search and 
seize property from USPV’s facility as part of the investigation of suspected 
criminal activities. The initial USPV warrant did not authorize a criminal search or 
seizure of contents from locked vault boxes and required agents to follow their 
written policies to inventory items and contact individual box owners to claim their 
property after any seizures. (Snitko v. United States (9th Cir. 2024) 90 F.4th 1250.) 
Following the seizure and inventory of their property, plaintiffs filed suit seeking 
the return of their property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b) 
and violations of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. (CACD Case 2:21-cv-
04405-RGK-MAR). Although plaintiffs’ property was eventually returned, 
plaintiffs continued to pursue equitable relief, seeking the return or destruction of 
all records from the inventory search. The district court denied plaintiffs’ request to 
destroy records, but the 9th Circuit reversed that decision in a published opinion 
issued January 23, 2024. (Snitko v. United States (9th Cir. 2024) 90 F.4th 1250). 
Mr. Bobby Jackson’s case is inextricably linked to the Snitko v. United 
States matter. Agents first learned of Mr. Jackson following the unlawful search 
and inventory procedure of the private vaults’ safety deposit boxes. Following the 
unlawful search, police obtained several warrants for individuals including 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 4 of 17   Page ID #:134

 
 
5 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
warrants for the residences and storage units belonging to Mr. Mitchell Magee and 
Mr. Michael Magee. (Lyndon Versoza Warrant Affidavit, Exhibit A, Warrant 
Affidavit p. 9).  While searching the Magee properties, agents came across the 
name of “Bobby,” and based on Magees’ phone records, US Postal Inspector 
Lyndon Versoza believed "Bobby” was Mr. Bobby Jackson. (Exhibit A- Versoza 
Warrant Affidavit, p. 9). Inspector Versoza unlawfully searched the laptop 
belonging to Mr. Mitchell Magee and discovered a lease agreement for a 
residential property associated with Mr. Bobby Jackson. (Exhibit A- Versoza 
Warrant Affidavit, Affidavit, p. 9). The inspector also located a number of EDD 
unemployment claims filed by 18 individuals, all using an address associated with 
Bobby Jackson in Las Vegas. (Exhibit A- Versoza Warrant Affidavit, p. 10). In 
the signed affidavit supporting the warrant, Inspector Versoza identifies Bobby 
Jackson as a member of the same conspiracy which included Mitchell and Michael 
Magee. (Exhibit A- p. 5).    
On June 16, 2022, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Margo Rocconi issued a 
warrant in 2:22-MJ-02364 for cell phone data for Bobby Joe Jackson.  On July 15, 
2022, the Honorable John McDermott, US Magistrate Judge signed a search 
warrant granting permission to search Mr. Jackson’s home and property for related 
records and documents. The warrant affidavits were based on evidence and 
information unlawfully obtained from the US Private Vaults searches and seizures 
that were deemed unlawful and inadmissible against Jackson’s co-conspirators.  
(Snitko v. United States (9th Cir. 2024) 90 F.4th 1250). Following the service of 
the warrants, Mr. Jackson was subsequently detained and arrested. He was charged 
in the underlying indictment and has already served more than 19 months in 
federal custody for the alleged misconduct.  He has completed 13 months on a 
federal violation of probation and an additional 6 months detention pending the 
outcome of this criminal prosecution.  Following his incarceration on the probation 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 5 of 17   Page ID #:135

 
 
6 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
violation, Mr. Jackson was transferred to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los 
Angeles where he continues to remain incarcerated. 
During oral arguments before the 9th Circuit panel in Snitko v. USA, the 
Justices made their position clear that the government search and seizure of the 
safety deposit boxes exceeded the scope of the warrant. Following the oral 
arguments, the government filed a motion to vacate and remand the matter with 
instructions to the District Court to grant Plaintiff’s requested relief. (Exhibit B-
C.A. No. 22-56050, Dkt # 48). In their moving papers the government indicates 
that they understand and appreciate the Court’s serious Fourth Amendment 
concerns about the inventory search conducted at Private Vaults. (Exhibit B-C.A. 
No. 22-56050, Dkt # 48, p. 2). The government then asks the court to “order the 
FBI to sequester or destroy the records of its search pertaining to all class 
members, so that they can no longer be used for investigative purposes.” (Id. 
emphasis added).  The 9th Circuit Panel agreed and issued their ruling January 23, 
2024, reversing and remanding the District Court ruling, finding that the plaintiffs’ 
4th Amendment rights were violated, and the court included instructions to the 
Circuit Court to order the FBI to sequester or destroy the records of its inventory 
search. (Snitko, 90 F.4th 1250). The records that the court ordered destroyed 
against Mr. Jackson’s conspirators in the Snitko case are the same records cited by 
the government to support the warrants obtained and used against Mr. Bobby 
Jackson that resulted in his arrest and prosecution. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 6 of 17   Page ID #:136

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITES
A.THE EVIDENCE SEIZED AND INVENTORIED IN THE US 
PRIVATE VAULTS CASE WAS DEEMED UNLAWFULLY SEIZED 
AND PROHIBITED FROM BEING USED IN ANY INVESTIGATION, 
THAT SAME EVIDENCE WAS UASED AGAINST MR. JACKSON 
AND MUST BE EXCLUDED AS FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE
Investigators first became aware of Mr. Bobby Jackson following the 
unlawful search and seizure of evidence from US Private Vaults, Beverly Hills. In 
their initial warrant request, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office had not asked 
to seize the contents of the individual boxes in the vault and conveniently omitted 
their plans to do so in the warrant application. They instead assured U.S. 
Magistrate Judge Steve Kim that their intent was only to inventory the vault boxes 
and that agents would follow FBI policies for taking inventory of the box contents 
in order to protect against theft allegations, then contact the box owners about 
retrieving their property. (Snitko v. United States (9th Cir. 2024) 90 F.4th 1250.). 
In fact, the warrant authorized by Judge Kim specifically stated that “This warrant 
does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety [sic] 
deposit boxes.” (Snitko (2024) 90 F.4th 1250, 1254.). Agents obtained the warrant 
and conducted a thorough criminal search of the safety deposit boxes of all 
customers, which included those belonging to Mr. Michael and Mitchell Magee. 
The FBI and US Attorneys misled the Judge and attempted to circumvent the limits 
of the warrant by issuing a "Supplemental Instructions on Box Inventory" which 
was never provided to Judge Kim. (Snitko v. United States (9th Cir. 2024) 90 F.4th 
1250, 1256.).  The secret supplemental instructions included how to collect cash in 
evidence bags, process it for forfeiture, and provided that drug sniffing dogs would 
be onsite to assist. (Snitko v. United States (9th Cir. 2024) 90 F.4th 1250, 1256.).  
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 7 of 17   Page ID #:137

 
 
8 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The government conducted what is we now know was an illegal search and 
seizure, then used information found during the search and inventory process to 
obtain more search warrants from individuals not associated with the US Bank 
Vaults business, including Bobby Jackson. Warrants issued for property belonging 
to Mr. Magee at his residence. Items seized from Magee resulted in the 
government finding connections between Mr. Magee and Mr. Bobby Jackson. The 
government then obtained additional warrants for Mr. Bobby Jackson’s home, 
property and phone records based on allegations that Mr. Jackson was determined 
to be a coconspirator. (Exhibit A- Versoza Probable Cause Statement p. 5). The 
fruits of those warrants resulted in the filing of an indictment and subsequent arrest 
of Mr. Bobby Jackson. While the government once attempted to characterize the 
search and seizures of the private vaults as a legitimate inventory search, the 9th 
Circuit disagreed and said “If there remained any doubt regarding whether the 
government conducted a ‘criminal search or seizure,’ that doubt is put to rest by 
the fact the government has already used some of the information from inside the 
boxes to obtain additional warrants to further its investigation and begin new 
ones.” (Snitko (9th Cir. 2024) 90 F.4th at 1264). The 9th Circuit Court held that the 
District Court abused its discretion in concluding that the government did not 
exceed the scope of the warrant (Id. at 1265). The government ultimately conceded 
that suppression and destruction of all records of the evidence was the proper 
course of action. The court agreed stating that “In light of the government’s 
expressed willingness in its 'Motion to Vacate and Remand with Instructions to 
Grant Plaintiffs’ Requested Relief,’” the panel ordered the district court to order 
the FBI to sequester or destroy the records of its inventory search pertaining to 
class members and to dispose of the records, including copies of the records kept 
on the Sentinel database. (Id. at 1266).  
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 8 of 17   Page ID #:138

 
 
9 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Following the oral arguments in Snitko, the government all but conceded the 
evident illegality of the underlying search of the vaults when they filed a motion to 
vacate and remand the District Court ruling. The government’s brief indicates that: 
 “The government understands and appreciates the 
Court’s concerns expressed at oral argument. Having 
reflected on those concerns following oral argument, the 
government seeks an equitable order that will afford 
Plaintiffs the maximum remedy available consistent with 
their request for relief.  Specifically, this Court should 
vacate and remand with instructions that the district court 
“order the FBI to sequester or destroy the records of its 
search pertaining to all class members, so that they can no 
longer be used for investigative purposes.”  
(Exhibit B -CACD 22-56050, Dkt. # 48, page 4 of 5).  
Given that the parties agree that the government’s underlying search and 
inventory of US Private Vaults unlawfully exceeded the scope of the warrant, any 
evidence seized pursuant to that search becomes tainted by the illegality and 
should be suppressed pursuant to the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Any 
evidence which flows from an illegal detention, arrest, search, or seizure is tainted 
by the illegality and must be suppressed. If the challenged government conduct is 
shown to be violative of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule requires that 
all evidence obtained as a result of such conduct be suppressed. (People v. 
Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1299; Mapp v. Ohio, supra, 367 U.S. at pp. 646-
660). Such evidence includes not only what was seized in the course of the 
unlawful conduct itself -- the so-called "primary" evidence but also what was 
subsequently obtained through the information gained by the police in the course 
of such conduct -- the so-called "derivative" or "secondary" evidence, the "fruit of 
the poisonous tree," as well as the tree itself, must be excluded. (People v. 
Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1299).  
 All evidence against Mr. Jackson in the underlying case including seized 
records, verbal admissions, all his statements and any physical evidence, constitute 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 9 of 17   Page ID #:139

 
 
10 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
derivative evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful search and seizure from the 
US Private Vaults investigation. US Postal Inspector Lyndon A. Versoza who 
authored the probable cause statement in support of the search warrant stated the 
following:   
“I also reviewed records found in the MITCHELL’s laptop, which was  
was recovered at MITCHELL’s residence pursuant to Judge McDermott’s 
 
warrant. In the laptop was a lease agreement for 194 S. Tamarisk, Rialto, CA 
 
92376 (“Tamarisk Address”) for a tenant using the name whose initials starts 
 
with “J.S.” for October 2019 through October 2020 for $1200 a month. I 
 
reviewed public record searches for the Tamarisk address and learned that it 
 
is associated with BOBBY JACKSON.”  
(Exhibit A- Versoza Probable Cause Statement). 
Inspector Versoza writes in her statement that she links Mr. Jackson to an 
alleged conspiracy involving Mitchell and Michael Magee based on text messages 
and phone records belonging to the Magee brothers. (Id.). Versoza’s probable 
cause statement makes clear that Mr. Jackson became a suspect and alleged 
conspirator following the discovery of the information and evidence obtained 
through the search and inventory process that began through the US Private Vaults, 
Beverly Hills unlawful search of the deposit boxes. As such, all evidence against 
Mr. Jackson constitutes fruit of the poisonous tree and is inadmissible and 
therefore should be suppressed and the criminal case should be dismissed. 
The “exclusionary rule” removes an incentive for officers to search us 
without proper justification. (Terry v. Ohio, (1968) 392 U. S. 1, 12). It also keeps 
courts from being “made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of 
citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such 
invasions.” (Id. at 13). When courts admit only lawfully obtained evidence, they 
encourage “those who formulate law enforcement policies, and the officers who 
implement them, to incorporate Fourth Amendment ideals into their value system.” 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 10 of 17   Page ID #:140

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Stone v. Powell, (1976) 428 U. S. 465, 492). But when courts admit illegally 
obtained evidence as well, they reward “manifest neglect if not an open defiance of 
the prohibitions of the Constitution.” (Weeks v. United States, (1914) 232 U. S. 
383, 394). 
"It is well settled that evidence seized during an unlawful search cannot 
constitute proof against the victim of the search." (Frimmel Mgmt., LLC v. United 
States, (9th Cir. 2018) 897 F.3d 1045, 1051. "The exclusionary rule encompasses 
both the primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure 
and . . . evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality, the so-
called 'fruit of the poisonous tree.'" (Utah v. Strieff, (2016) 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2061; 
see also Wong Sun v. United States, (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 488).  
B. WHILE MR. JACKSON WAS ON PROBATION AT THE TIME OF HIS 
SEARCH AND ARREST, HE STILL MAINTAINS HIS RIGHT TO BE
FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
At the time of the search of Mr. Jackson’s home and property, Mr. Jackson was 
on federal probation based on a 2011 conviction. Mr. Jackson's status as a 
probationer means that he begins with a lower expectation of privacy than is 
enjoyed by a citizen who is not subject to a criminal sanction. (United States v. 
King (9th Cir. 2013) 711 F.3d 986, 990). "Probation, like incarceration, is a form 
of criminal sanction imposed by a court upon an offender after verdict, finding, or 
plea of guilty. . . . Inherent in the very nature of probation is that probationers do 
not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled." (Id.)  
The King court stated in part that a defendant on probation has a greater  
expectation of privacy than does a parolee "[s]o we do not go so far as to hold, as 
the Samson Court did, that Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy that 
society would recognize as legitimate." (United States v. King (9th Cir. 2013) 711 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 11 of 17   Page ID #:141

 
 
12 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F.3d 986, 990 citing Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848, 126 S. Ct. 2193, 165 
L. Ed. 2d 250 (2006). "But we do conclude that Defendant’s expectation of privacy 
was small.” (United States v. King (9th Cir. 2013) 711 F.3d 986, 990.). As in King, 
Mr. Jackson has a legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy in his person and 
possessions, and the government is still required to comply with established, 
judicially sanctioned legal procedures before conducting a search or seizure. The 
government’s actions in this case did not comply with those judicially sanctioned 
standards.  
The court has laid out a reasonable search test in determining whether the 
government’s actions violate the Fourth Amendment for individuals on probation 
or parole. “Probation diminishes a probationer's reasonable expectation of privacy -
- so that a probation officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, search a 
probationer's home without a warrant, and with only reasonable grounds (not 
probable cause) to believe that contraband is present. (United States v. Knights  
(2001) 534 U.S. 112, 114). The courts "examine the totality of the circumstances" 
to determine whether a search is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth 
Amendment. (Knights, (2001) 534 U.S. at 118). Whether a search is reasonable "is 
determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an 
individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the 
promotion of legitimate governmental interests." (Id., at 118-119).  
In this case, Mr. Jackson’s reasonable expectation of privacy was infringed 
upon based on the unlawfully obtained evidence which was seized only after the 
government misled a Federal Judge and exceeded the scope of the warrant served 
at US Private Vaults. That evidence was inadmissible, and the subsequent search 
of Mr. Jackson’s home constitutes a violation of his rights based on the fruit of the 
poisonous tree doctrine. While Mr. Jackson does understand he had a reduced 
expectation of privacy given his probationary status, that limited expectation does 
not negate the unlawful conduct that led to the unlawful search of his property. 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 12 of 17   Page ID #:142

13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. MR. JACKSON HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE SEARCH
BASED ON DERIVATIVE AND VICARIOUS STANDING 
The government concedes that the underlying search and inventory of the US 
Bank Vaults location was unlawful. The government urged the Snitko court to 
order the FBI to sequester or destroy the records of its search so that they can no 
longer be used for investigative purposes. Meanwhile, the government used the 
unlawfully obtained evidence for investigative purposes and obtained a warrant for 
Mr. Jackson. The warrant for Mr. Jackson is based on an illegal seizure and relies 
on the false presumption that Mr. Bobby Jackson does not have valid standing to 
challenge the search of his residence and property.  
Mr. Jackson does in fact have standing to challenge the warrant and search of 
his property. In McDonald v. United States, the government unlawfully entered 
into McDonald’s room and obtained evidence that was admitted at trial against 
McDonald as well as his co-conspirator, Mr. Washington. (McDonald v. United 
States (1948) 335 U.S. 451). The lower court denied the suppression motion as to 
both individuals and they were convicted at trial. The Supreme Court, after finding 
the search unlawful, held that Washington, a guest assumed to be without standing 
in the searched home, was also entitled to a new trial in which the seized items 
would not be admitted against him. (McDonald (1948) 335 U.S. 451, 456). “Even 
though we assume, without deciding, that Washington, who was a guest of 
McDonald, had no right of privacy that was broken when the officers searched 
McDonald's room without a warrant, we think that the denial of McDonald's 
motion was error that was prejudicial to Washington as well.” (Id.) 
Following the McDonald opinion, the D.C. circuit court of appeals found 
similar derivative standing in Hair v. United States for a codefendant (Burroughs) 
who had no possessory interest in the property that was unlawfully searched and 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 13 of 17   Page ID #:143

 
 
14 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
seized as to Mr. Hair. (Hair v. United States (1961) 289 F.2d 894, 897). The court 
in Hair found persuasive appellant Burrough’s contention that like Hair, his 
conviction must also be reversed because the illegally obtained evidence was 
admitted against him as well as Hair. (Id.) “The property seized was not 
Burroughs', and he had no interest in the premises unlawfully invaded. Ordinarily 
one seeking to challenge the legality of a search or seizure must establish that he 
was the victim of the alleged invasion of privacy.” (Hair v. United States (1961) 
289 F.2d 894, 897) (Jones v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 257, 261, 80 S.Ct. 725, 
4 L.Ed.2d 697). Citing McDonald, the court relies on the same reasoning whereby 
the McDonald opinion reversed McDonald's conviction and Washington's as well, 
reasoning that the denial of McDonald's motion to suppress was prejudicial to 
Washington because, had the motion been granted, the evidence would not have 
been available for use at the trial. (Hair v. United States (1961) 289 F.2d 894, 897). 
 
The D.C. Appellate circuit extended this derivative standing theory beyond 
codefendants to include individuals charged in separate cases that involved the 
same unlawfully obtained evidence. In Nelson v. United States, Nelson appealed 
the denial of his suppression motion and that court reasoned that “as the Supreme 
Court said of an illegal seizure from an appellant in McDonald v. United States, 
'error that was prejudicial to (the other appellants) as well. '” (Nelson v. United 
States (1953) 208 F.2d 505, 514). “The court did not, and as a practical matter 
could not, limit the jury's consideration of the unlawfully seized evidence to 
Nelson alone. Moreover, we think it 'unjust and illogical to separate (these) cases' 
by reversing the judgment against the one charged with controlling the illegal 
enterprise and affirming the judgments against those who did his bidding.” (Nelson 
v. United States (1953) 208 F.2d 505, 514). The ruling in Nelson overturned the 
convictions in eight different cases involving eight separate individuals. (Nelson v. 
United States (1953) 208 F.2d 505, 514). 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 14 of 17   Page ID #:144

 
 
15 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
These principles are in place to prevent government misconduct and unlawful 
government actions that violate the 4th amendment rights of one individual in order 
to successfully prosecute another. This issue was also addressed by the US 
Supreme Court in Wong Sun v. United States, (1963) 83 S. Ct. 407. Wong Sun 
was prosecuted based on evidence obtained illegally following a warrantless search 
of Mr. James Toy. Toy made a statement following the unlawful search and 
detention naming a suspect Johnny Yee as a possible drug dealer. Wong Sun v. 
United States, (1963) 83 S. Ct. 407, 474). Police arrested Yee who was found in 
possession of heroin, and Yee incriminated James Toy, and both men identify 
Wong Sun as a narcotics supplier (Id. at 475). Toy and Yee were tried together, 
Wong Sun was tried separately, and the court of appeals ultimately determined that 
Toy and Yee’s warrantless searches were unlawful, any statements and evidence 
obtained were inadmissible, and the convictions remanded. (Id. at 478). Wong Sun 
who was tried separately challenged his conviction based on the “fruit of the 
poisonous tree” doctrine. While the court found that “The seizure of this heroin 
invaded no right of privacy of person or premises which would entitle Wong Sun 
to object to its use at his trial" the court still overturned the conviction based on the 
fact that unlawfully obtained statements made by Toy were admitted at trial and 
used against Wong Sun, and that excludable evidence should not have been 
admitted against Wong Sun and the case was remanded for a new trial. (Id. at 492) 
"The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way 
is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that 
it shall not be used at all.” (Wong Sun, (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 485; quoting 
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) 40 S.Ct. 182, 183). 
In the case of Bobby Jackson, Mr. Magee was unlawfully searched and the 
evidence obtained has been determined to be unlawfully obtained and the 
government has already conceded this point in their written briefs to the 9th Circuit. 
It would be improper and unjust to now allow the government to rely on that same 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 15 of 17   Page ID #:145

16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unlawfully obtained evidence and submit that illegal information to a magistrate in 
order to obtain a warrant for Mr. Bobby Jackson’s home and property. Anything 
found in Mr. Jackson’s home was the result of the unlawful fruits of the US Bank 
Vaults search and should not be admitted against Mr. Jackson. 
CONCLUSION
Mr. Jackson was searched and arrested as a result of the US Private Vaults, 
Beverly Hills investigation. Since that investigation began, the government and 9th 
Circuit Court have agreed that the search and seizure of evidence from US Private 
Vaults was unlawful and that any evidence obtained as a result shall be returned, 
and all records of such evidence shall be destroyed. The government conceded this 
point and filed a motion with the 9th Circuit asking the Court to “order the FBI to 
sequester or destroy the records of its search pertaining to all class members, so 
that they can no longer be used for investigative purposes.” (Exhibit B)  
Mr. Jackson now moves this court to exclude all evidence against him and dismiss 
the underlying indictment based on the unlawful search and derivative evidence 
obtained from it pursuant to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. 
Dated:  April 4, 2024
Respectfully Submitted, 
 By: 
 Tarek Shawky,  
Attorney for Bobby Jackson 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 16 of 17   Page ID #:146

17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
The undersigned, counsel of record for Bobby Jackson, certifies that this brief 
contains 4,597 words, which complies with the word limit of L.R. 11-6.1. 
Dated:  April 4, 2024
Respectfully Submitted, 
By: 
Tarek Shawky,  
Attorney for Bobby Jackson 
Case 2:23-cr-00210-DSF   Document 33   Filed 04/04/24   Page 17 of 17   Page ID #:147

File and source

File

doc-033-2024-04-04-Motion-to-Suppress-Jackson.pdf

Size

315,895 bytes

SHA-256

362ec4b9d1c758285e27de3e141cf4b2b5b8cb9eed68c117fa7048d0bd59f7d6

Our copy

doc-033-2024-04-04-Motion-to-Suppress-Jackson.pdf

Original

No public link identified.