Case 3:20-cr-00052-BAJ-RLB Document 151 08/24/21 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS
ELLIOT STERLING N0.20-00052-BAJ-RLB
ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 57) filed by
Defendant. The Motion is opposed. (Doc. 62). Oral argument is not necessary. See
United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 737 (5th Cir. 1983) ("Evidentiary hearings
are not granted as a matter of course, but are held only when the defendant alleges
sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief.").
Defendant's Motion is completely devoid citations to statutory or
jurisprudential support, or even basic detailed reasons for his request. Instead,
Defendant's Motion provides six conclusory arguments that allegedly warrant
suppression of the evidence, described by Defendant as follows:
(1) Jail Calls
a. 3rd party jail calls not accepted by the Defendant
b. Any call that doesn't identifies [sic] the defendant by his name
c. Any calls not related to the matter
(2) Text messages
a. Have to be authenticated that the text message is real,
because with the advancement of technology you can make
calls or text messages using apps such as Spoof and others
b. Text messages has to be authenticated.
(3) Cox Communications, Inc
a. Never owned a computer and will attach copies of
[Defendant's] provider that the $10 dollar service [Defendant]
always had was never connected to a computer and isn t strong
Case 3:20-cr-00052-BAJ-RLB Document 151 08/24/21 Page 2 of 3
enough of a connection for a computer to operate.
(Doc. 57, p. 2).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right
to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is silent about how this
right is to be enforced." Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 231 (2011). While the
Amendment does not explicitly provide a remedy for violations of this right, the
Supreme Court of the United States created the exclusionary rule ... a prudential'
doctrine ... to 'compel respect for the constitutional guaranty. Id. at 236 (citing
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363 (1998); and then
citing Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 (1961)). The sole function of the rule
"is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations. Id. at 237.
The United States alleges that Defendant has not alleged any violation of the
Fourth Amendment or statute that would warrant the exclusion of the evidence.
Rather, Defendant has instead argued evidentiary objections or arguments on the
merits of the evidence, not grounds for suppression. The Court agrees.
Even reviewing Defendant's Motion liberally, Defendant has failed to provide
support for the suppression of evidence. Instead, Defendant invites the Court to
speculate as to whether the evidence was unlawfully seized. Although the Court
recognizes that Defendant is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, the
Constitution does not "require judges to take over chores for a pro se defendant that
would normally be attended to by trained counsel as a matter of course." McCaskle v.
Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 184 (1984). Nor is <([t]he right of self-representation ... a
license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. Id.
2
Case 3:20-cr-00052-BAJ-RLB Document 151 08/24/21 Page 3 of 3
(citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n. 46 (1975)). Defendant has failed to
meet his burden.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to suppress (Doc. 57) is DENIED.
^
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this day of August, 2021
JUDGE BRIAN'A^JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA