Case Results

United States v. C.K.

Possession With Intent to Distribute More Than 100 grams of Methamphetamine
Motion to Suppress All Narcotics and Paraphernalia Granted.

C.K. was pulled over for failing to stop at a stop sign. After providing the officer with his valid license and registration, the officer did everything in his power to delay issuing C.K. a ticket. The officer’s leisure gave a fellow officer just enough time to arrive on scene and walk a K-9 around C.K.’s vehicle.

In his sworn police report, the K-9 officer claimed that upon sniffing C.K.’s vehicle the K-9 sat next to C.K.’s driver side door, signaling to the officers that he detected narcotics in the vehicle. C.K. was promptly searched and the officer seized what he claimed to be “the largest shard of methamphetamine” he had ever seen.

In a motion to suppress, Mr. Bolotin argued the K-9 never actually alerted to the smell of narcotics, therefore no probable cause to search C.K. existed, and the “largest shard of methamphetamine” must be suppressed. Notably, Mr. Bolotin pointed out the squad car video showed the K-9 never actually sat next to C.K.’s vehicle -the action the K9 was trained to do if he detected narcotics.

In an attempt to excuse the non-alert, the officer claimed his K-9 did not sit because there was a puddle on the ground and the ground was cold. The video did not show any puddle and an expert testified a properly trained K-9 would never fail to sit upon detecting narcotics no matter how wet or cold the ground was. The federal judge agreed and granted the motion to suppress the methamphetamine. Without the ability to admit the meth at trial, the United States was required to dismiss all charges.

People v. S.A.

Possession with Intent to Distribute More Than 54 Kilograms of Cocaine.
Motion to Suppress All Narcotics Convinces Prosecution to Dismiss Case Without a Hearing.

Investigating a drug trafficking organization, police obtained wire-taps on multiple people’s phones. After listening to their conversations, officers learned a huge shipment of cocaine would arrive hidden in tomato crates. Jumping at this information, the officers waited at the location the shipment was to arrive, stopped the tomato truck, and seized 54 kilograms of cocaine.

There was only one problem, as Mr. Bolotin pointed out in a motion to suppress. The wiretaps were 100% illegal. The law required the elected state’s attorney to sign off on all non-consensual wiretap applications -wiretaps where neither person talking on the phone worked as a snitch and consented to the police officers listening to their conversations. None of the wiretap applications obtained by the police in A.S.’s case were ever authorized by the elected state’s attorney. 

Mr. Bolotin filed a motion to suppress arguing the seizure of the cocaine was the fruit of the poisonous tree: without the illegal wiretaps, the officers would never had been allowed to listen on the conversations, would never have learned the cocaine was hidden in the tomato crates, would never have had any cause, let alone probable cause, to search the crates, and would never had found the cocaine. After reviewing Mr. Bolotin’s motion to suppress, the prosecution knew they had no case and dismissed all charges.

People v. L.T.

Possession with Intent to Distribute 100-440 Grams of Cocaine.

Officers saw L.T. exit a multiunit apartment complex while they prepared to execute a search warrant on a specific units inside the complex. In their police reports, the officers claimed they stopped L.T., searched his bag, and seized over 100 grams of cocaine. According the officers, they caught L.T. red-handed.

Mr. Bolotin worked on the defense team that annihilated the officers’ claims. During the search of the specific apartment, the officers did not find any mail, identification, or any other documents that indicated who lived in the apartment. Though the officers did not find any indicia of ownership, they took pictures of every room of the apartment. The officers also took pictures of the cocaine and L.T.’s bag, but never took pictures of the drugs inside the bag.

At trial, Mr. Bolotin and the defense team argued the officers were lying. L.T.’s bag never contained the drugs. Instead, the officers stopped L.T. after he exited the apartment complex and kept him in custody while they searched the specific unit apartment. When the officers found drugs inside the apartment, but nothing that indicated who lived in the unit, the cops made the decision to put the drugs on L.T. The jury agreed and found L.T. Not Guilty of all charges.