United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Chandan Manansingh filed a Motion to Suppress on November 4,
2016 regarding a search that was conducted at his residence
on April 1, 2016. (ECF No. 36). Manansingh seeks to suppress
all evidence obtained from the search because there was no
reasonable suspicion to support the search. The Court held
evidentiary hearings in March of 2017. On May 26, 2017 the
Court issued its oral ruling granting the Motion to Suppress
and indicating that it would issue a written order. This
written order follows granting Manansingh's Motion to
Suppress. (ECF No. 36).
Court makes the following findings of fact and holdings.
November 26, 2013 Manansingh was sentenced in the District of
Maryland for his conviction for Introduction of Misbranded
Drugs into Interstate Commerce with Intent to Defraud or
Mislead. He received 36 months of probation. The supervision
for Manansingh's probation was transferred to this
District on March 18, 2015.
December 4, 2015, judgment (the “December 4
Judgment”) was entered against Manansingh for violating
the conditions of his probation and sentencing him to 77 days
of custody. The December 4 Judgment included a supervised
release condition which prohibited Manansingh from using
legal or illegal steroids that are associated with increasing
physical strength. On January 6, 2016, judgment (the
“January 6 Judgement”) was again entered against
Manansingh for violating the conditions of his supervised
release and he was sentenced to time served with twelve
months of supervised release. The January 6 Judgment
included, inter alia, a condition of supervised
release authorizing a warrantless search of Manansingh's
residence based upon “reasonable suspicion of
contraband or evidence of a violation of a condition of
supervision.” The January 6 Judgment also include a no
steroid condition. The conditions for these two judgments are
incorporated by reference into this Order.
has never contended that he was unaware of all of his
conditions of supervised release for the December 4 Judgment
and the January 6 Judgment. The Court finds that he was fully
aware of all of the conditions of supervised release for
these two judgments.
Court held an evidentiary hearing on March 15, 2017. The
Court heard the testimony of Probation Officer Shawn Mummey
and received documentary evidence. Based upon this hearing
and the Court's credibility determinations as to the
witness's testimony and the exhibits admitted, the Court
makes the following findings of fact.
officers conducted a search of Manansingh's apartment on
April 1, 2016. During this search officers discovered two
handgun magazines containing ammunition (bullets) in a
bedroom in the apartment.
December 9, 2015, Manansingh informed his probation officer
Shawn Mummey that he owned an old Mercedes (the
“Mercedes”) that he used for transportation. On
December 10, 2015, Mummey saw Manansingh at his counseling
appointment and saw that he was driving a black BMW (the
“BMW”). Manansingh told Mummey that the BMW
belonged to Manansingh's fiancé, Ms. Angela
Nairns. Manansingh told Mummey that his Mercedes was not
working so he needed to drive the BMW. He told Mummey that he
did not expect to be driving the BMW regularly in the future.
Subsequent to this conversation but before the search in this
case, Mummey checked the BMW's registration with the
Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and confirmed that it
belonged to Nairns. Mummey never received or had any
information to suggest that Manansingh could not drive the
BMW. Mummey also understood before the search in this case
that Manansingh might need to drive the BMW when
Manansingh's vehicle was not working. Mummey also knew
before the search the identifying information for both
vehicles. The Probation Office never received any information
that Manansingh regularly or infrequently drove any other
vehicles besides the Mercedes and the BMW. Manansingh was
truthful with Mummey about the vehicles he was driving and
did not mislead or lie to Mummey about what vehicles he drove
or the circumstances regarding when he would be driving them.
Mummey saw Manansingh driving the BMW to another counseling
appointment on March 29, 2016. The Court does not find that,
prior to the search, Mummey or the Probation Office were
aware of Manansingh's possible failure to note the
Mercedes and BMW on his online monthly reports in early 2016.
The Court does not even find that such a failure actually
occurred. Moreover, Mummey was clearly aware of the cars that
Manansingh drove, and Manansingh provided him truthful
information about these vehicles as directed.
informed Mummey around June of 2015 that Manansingh had
obtained employment as a courier. Manansingh was also seeking
to be reinstated as an attorney because his license had been
suspended upon his federal conviction. Between June 2015 and
the date of the search, Manansingh provided, as requested and
required, documentation of his employment as a courier.
Manansingh received approximately $500 per month in net
income. The Probation Office did not have any information
during this period that Manansingh had any other sources of
income or assets. Mummey confirmed that Manansingh's
residence in an upscale apartment/condominium complex was
actually the apartment of his fiancé, Nairns. Mummey
confirmed with the management of the complex before the
search in this case that Nairns was listed on the lease and
that Manansingh was listed ...