Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona REID C. PIXLER Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 12850 40 North Central Ave., Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America,
CIV 03-2345-PHX-VAM

Plaintiff, v. 1) $493,850.00 in U.S. Currency, and 2) One 1993 Ford F350 Truck, Defendants, And Regarding the Interest of Roy F. Bruno and Miguel Camacho, Claimants. Pursuant to Rule 1.10(1)(1), Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for Amended Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiff's Second Motion for Summary Judgment

18

the District of Arizona, the United States of America submits the following Amended
19

Statement of Facts in conjunction with its Amended Second Motion for Summary Judgment
20

filed herewith.
21

STATEMENT OF FACTS
22

1.
23 24

The defendants consist of the following property: United States funds in the

amount of $493,850.00, and one 1993 Ford F350 Truck, seized on June 3, 2003, while within the jurisdiction of this Court. See Complaint page 2 ¶ 3.
25 2. 26

On June 3, 2003, Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) Highway Patrol

Officer J. McFarland, (Officer McFarland) traveling at the posted speed limit of 75 miles

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 1 of 20

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

per hour Southbound on Interstate 17 near Camp Verde, Arizona, passed a white Ford pickup with a Florida license plate. See Complaint ¶1, and Affidavit of Officer McFarland
attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Officer McFarland slowed down and observed the driver.

Officer McFarland noted that the driver appeared to be a white male. See Complaint ¶1, and
Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.

3.

The driver had a rigid posture with both hands on the steering wheel, and

never looked over in Officer McFarland's direction. Officer McFarland also noted that the driver appeared to be the only occupant in the vehicle. See Complaint ¶1, and Exhibit A,
Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 4.

Officer McFarland passed the vehicle, exited Interstate 17 at exit 289 and re-

entered the Interstate to further observe the vehicle. See Complaint ¶2, and Exhibit A, Affidavit
of Officer McFarland.

5.

Officer McFarland paced the vehicle for several miles at 65 to 70 miles per

hour in the posted 75 mile per hour zone. See Complaint ¶2, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer
McFarland.

6.

While following the vehicle, Officer McFarland observed the left wheels cross

over the center lane divider on two occasions. See Complaint ¶3, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of
Officer McFarland.

7.

The fact that the vehicle was traveling below the posted speed limit along with

the fact that the vehicle crossed the center lane on more than one occasion, were in Officer McFarland's experience, factors typical of a driver who may be fatigued, impaired or inattentive. See Complaint ¶ 3, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.
8.

Officer McFarland initiated a traffic stop at milepost 287. See Complaint ¶

4, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.

2

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 2 of 20

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

9.

Officer McFarland approached the vehicle on the passenger's side and

explained to the driver the reason for the stop along with his concern that the driver may be fatigued. See Complaint ¶5, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 10. Officer McFarland asked the driver for his driver's license and registration.

See Complaint ¶6, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.

11.

The driver provided a Florida driver's license which identified him as Miguel

CAMACHO, (CAMACHO), 5701 SW 82nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. See Complaint ¶6. 12. The registration reflected that CAMACHO was the registered owner of the

vehicle. See Complaint ¶ 6.
13.

The passenger did not have any form of identification, however, identified

himself as Roy Frederick BRUNO (BRUNO). In the rear seat of the extra cab of the vehicle were two young white male children. See Complaint ¶ 7.
14.

While speaking with CAMACHO and BRUNO, Officer McFarland noticed

a strong odor of air freshener coming from the interior of the vehicle. Investigators know that traffickers in controlled substances, often try to mask the odor of controlled substances with the use of a strong air freshener. See Complaint ¶8, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer
McFarland..

15.

Officer McFarland asked CAMACHO to step back to the patrol vehicle where

he wrote CAMACHO a warning for unsafe lane usage. See Complaint ¶ 9. 16. While writing the warning, Officer McFarland asked CAMACHO where he

was going, CAMACHO stated, Phoenix. See Complaint ¶ 10, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of
Officer McFarland.

17.

Officer McFarland made an inquiry regarding CAMACHO's choice of travel

route as Interstate 10, not Interstate 17, was a more direct route from Florida. CAMACHO stated that they traveled through Oklahoma in order to pick up BRUNO's children. See Complaint ¶ 11, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.
3

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 3 of 20

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

18.

When Office McFarland asked BRUNO questions regarding their travel,

BRUNO provided conflicting information. See Complaint ¶ 16, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of
Officer McFarland..

19.

BRUNO provided vague responses to Officer McFarland's queries regarding

BRUNO's place of residence. See Complaint ¶ 17 and 18, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer
McFarland.

20.

BRUNO provided several differing time lines to questions regarding the

length of time he and CAMACHO would be staying in Arizona. See Complaint ¶ 17, 18 and 19, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 21. Officer McFarland issued a warning ticket and indicated CAMACHO was

free to go. See Complaint ¶ 21, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 22. Officer McFarland asked CAMACHO if he had any marijuana, cocaine,

methamphetamine, other drugs, or any large quantities of currency in the vehicle. CAMACHO denied transporting illegal drugs or large quantities of currency, but refused a request to search the interior of the truck. See Complaint ¶ 23, 24, 25,26, and 27, and
Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.

23.

CAMACHO consented to the canine inspection of the exterior of the vehicle.

See Complaint ¶28, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.

24.

The officer obtained his narcotics detection canine from the patrol unit and

deployed the canine on an exterior sniff of the truck. See Complaint ¶34. 25. The canine showed interest along the driver's side of the truck and alerted to

the driver's side door. See Complaint ¶ 35. 26. The officer removed the passengers from the truck and conducted a search of

the interior of the truck. See Complaint ¶38.

4

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 4 of 20

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.

During the search the officer noticed an odor of marijuana emanating from the

interior of the truck and two air fresheners present within the truck, which appeared to be used to mask the odor. See Complaint ¶ 39, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.
28.

During the course of the search of the truck, Officer McFarland found inside

a maroon duffel bag a rubber-banded bundle of cash. See Complaint ¶ 40. 29. Officer McFarland showed the bundle to CAMACHO. CAMACHO stated

that the money was not his, and that the bag belonged to BRUNO. See Complaint ¶ 40 and
41, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 30.

Officer McFarland asked BRUNO how much cash he had with him, BRUNO

stated that he had "4" or "6" he wasn't sure. See Complaint ¶42, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of
Officer McFarland.

31.

Officer McFarland asked what "4" meant, BRUNO explained, "four thousand

dollars." This bundle was subsequently found to contain approximately four thousand dollars. See Complaint ¶ 42, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 32. BRUNO claimed the money was from "working". See Complaint ¶ 43, and

Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.

33.

While searching under the rear seat, Officer McFarland observed a cellophane

wrapped bundle of currency. See Complaint ¶ 44.
34. Officer McFarland brought CAMACHO to the vehicle and showed him the bundle

of currency. Officer McFarland asked CAMACHO if was his money. CAMACHO stated that it was not, and that it was possible that BRUNO had put it in the vehicle. See Complaint ¶ 44, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.

35.

Officer McFarland asked BRUNO if the money belonged to him. Initially,

BRUNO denied ownership. See Complaint ¶ 45

5

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 5 of 20

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

36.

Officer McFarland asked BRUNO again if the money was his. BRUNO

stated that he did not understand the question. Officer McFarland restated the question. BRUNO admitted that the money was his. See Complaint ¶ 45 37. Officer McFarland advised BRUNO that he thought the money was involved

in money laundering and possibly drug trafficking, and asked BRUNO if he could account for the money. See Complaint ¶ 46 38. BRUNO stated that he could account for the money, however, BRUNO could

not provide any documentation. See Complaint ¶ 47. 39. Officer McFarland asked BRUNO if he had placed the bundle of currency

under the back seat. BRUNO responded, "yeah, I put it there." Approximately $10,000.00, in U.S. currency was found under the rear seat of the vehicle. See Complaint ¶ 48. 40. Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) Highway Patrol Officer B.

Thomas (Officer Thomas), assisted Officer McFarland in the search of the vehicle. See Complaint ¶ 49, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 41. Officer Thomas advised Officer McFarland that he had found numerous

rubber banded bundles of currency hidden underneath the dashboard of the vehicle. See Complaint ¶ 49, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 42. Officer McFarland asked BRUNO if that cash also belonged to him. BRUNO

stated that it was his money. See Complaint ¶ 49 43. Officer McFarland asked BRUNO how much currency was in the dashboard,

BRUNO stated "40." See Complaint ¶ 50 44. Officer McFarland asked BRUNO if he meant there was $40,000,00 in the

dashboard, BRUNO responded "yeah." Approximately $50,980.00, in U.S. currency was found in the dashboard of the vehicle. See Complaint ¶ 50.

6

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 6 of 20

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

45.

Officer McFarland asked BRUNO if there was cash hidden anywhere else in

the vehicle, including the gas tank. See Complaint ¶ 51, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 46. BRUNO stated that all the money was in the dash and under the back seat of

the vehicle. See Complaint ¶ 52, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 47. Investigators inspected the fuel line of the rear tank which appeared to have See Complaint ¶ 56, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.

been plugged. 48.

The fill nozzle appeared dusty and unused. Investigators attempted to use the

switch inside the driver's compartment to switch fuel tanks, however, it was inoperable. See
Complaint ¶ 56 49.

Investigators observed that the rear fuel tank had two metal straps which

extended from the back of the fuel tank to the front of the fuel tank with a bolt at each end. The bolts and holding straps had been cut off on top which meant that the bolts were not holding the tank on. See Complaint ¶ 57, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland.. 50. Upon further inspection, Officer Thomas observed a trunk-type latch on the

top of the fuel tank. Investigators know based on experience that these trunk-type latches are common in securing illegal compartments for drug transportation and are not consistent with the original/factory equipment. See Complaint ¶ 58, and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer McFarland. 51. Investigators know that illegal compartments are usually released or opened

by some type of electronic device by an unknown sequence of switches such as the defroster, windshield wipers, cruise control, etc.. See Complaint ¶ 59.
52.

After removing the tank, investigators could see the top of the tank had been

modified by metal welding and fabrication to create a large depression in the top of the tank which created a large storage area. The original top of the tank covered this depression/storage area. During the removal of the tank, the cover to the storage area came off and
7

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 7 of 20

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

investigators could see numerous packages wrapped in red cellophane and the tank was partially filled with water. Through the cellophane, investigators observed that the contents of the packages were bundles of U.S. currency. The total amount removed from the rear fuel tank was $429,680.00.
McFarland.

See Complaint ¶ 60, 61 and Exhibit A, Affidavit of Officer

53.

Although CAMACHO denied any knowledge of the currency found in his

vehicle, he refused to sign the Arizona Department of Public Safety Disclaimer of Ownership of Currency or Property form. See Complaint ¶ 64. 54. On September 29, 2003, claimant Roy F. BRUNO, through his attorney,

Richard B. Jones, filed a Claim and Request for Judicial Forfeiture for the $493,850.00 in U.S. currency. See Complaint ¶ 75. 55. On September 29, 2003, claimant Miguel CAMACHO, through his attorney,

Richard B. Jones, filed a Claim and Request for Judicial Forfeiture for the 1993 Ford F350 Pick-Up Truck. See Complaint ¶ 76. 56. Based upon Officer McFarland's experience, the following were indicators

consistent with the transportation of proceeds of drug trafficking: a. The driver in a rigid posture, refusing to acknowledge the patrol unit as it passed the truck, coupled with inattentive driving such as weaving. See Complaint ¶ 1 b. Despite receiving only a warning, CAMACHO remained nervous throughout the traffic stop i.e., pacing, constantly moving his hands in and out of his pockets. See Complaint ¶ 22 a c. CAMACHO was from Miami, a known source/destination city for drugs, and was traveling to Phoenix and then on to Tucson, both known source/destination cities. See Complaint ¶ 22 b d. CAMACHO's did not seem to have a valid explanation for his travel, other than to drive the passenger (BRUNO) around. See Complaint ¶ 22 c
8

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 8 of 20

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

e. The relationship between CAMACHO and BRUNO, was not consistent with people who vacation together. See Complaint ¶ 22 d f. BRUNO and CAMACHO did not live together in Miami, and BRUNO was very vague about his current living arrangements, stating that he had belongings in Tucson and Miami, and is currently deciding where to live. See Complaint ¶ 22 e g. BRUNO had informed Officer McFarland that he had been to Phoenix on previous occasions with CAMACHO, however, CAMACHO stated that this was his first trip to Phoenix, yet previously stated that he liked Phoenix. See Complaint ¶ 22 f h. The strong odor of air freshener coming from the cab area of a 10 year old general purpose truck. See Complaint ¶ 8 i. The canine alert to the driver's side door of the cab area of the pickup truck which contained both a substantial quantity of currency concealed behind the dash and in containers, as well as an odor of marijuana. See Complaint ¶ 40, 42, 44 j. The presence of two hidden compartments which could conceal controlled substances or the proceeds of exchanges for the controlled substances, i.e. the false gas tank and the area behind the dash. See Complaint ¶ 50 -61 k. A very large amount of currency. See Complaint ¶ 61 l. Inconsistencies in the statements between CAMACHO and BRUNO. m. CAMACHO hesitated and made a vague statement about having some money in his pocket and a substantial change in the nature of his responses once questions were directed to whether the vehicle contained large sums of currency. See Complaint ¶ 24 57. On November 26, 2003, Plaintiff United States of America, filed a Complaint

for Forfeiture In Rem, See Complaint, CR 1
9

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 9 of 20

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

58.

On December 9, 2003, Plaintiff, United States of America, filed Notice of

Service of First Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories, First Request For Production, and First Request For Admissions, upon claimants through their attorney Richard B. Jones. See Notice of Service of First Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories, First Request For Production, and First Request For Admissions dated December 9, 2004. 59. In late January, 2004, counsel for claimants contacted plaintiff and requested

additional time to respond to discovery requests. Although discovery requests had been served upon claimants more than 60 days prior, plaintiff agreed to an extension to February 19, 2004. 60. On February 19, 2004, plaintiff received correspondence from counsel for

claimants dated February 18, 2004, which stated that on the advise of their attorney, claimants would not be responding to plaintiff's discovery requests , and further, on advise of counsel, claimants would be invoking their 5th Amendment privilege. See Jones Correspondence dated February 18, 2004, attached as Exhibit B. 61. Claimants have refused to answer all discovery on the basis that such requests

for production of evidence is a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights. 62. On March 3, 2004, Plaintiff responded to Mr. Jones' February 18, 2004, See March 3, 2004,

correspondence in an effort to resolve the discovery issues.

Correspondence, attached hereto as Exhibit C. See also March 9, 2004, Correspondence, attached hereto as Exhibit D. See also March 18, 2004, Correspondence, attached hereto as Exhibit E. 63. As of this date, Claimants have failed to respond and provide answers to

Plaintiffs First Set Of Non Uniform Interrogatories and First Request For Production of Documents and First Request for Admissions. 64. Therefore, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 the following admissions are deemed

admitted as a result of the refusal of claimants to specifically admit or deny the Requests for
10

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 10 of 20

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

Admission. The following Requests for Admission are subject to the adverse inference drawn from the fact that claimants have refused to answer these questions on the basis that the answers would tend to incriminate them. The effective is exactly the same as if the admissions are deemed admitted.1 Request for Admissions Roy F. Bruno 65. Admit that you concealed or caused to be concealed the defendant currency

within the defendant 1993 Ford pick up truck owned by Miguel Camacho. Admitted by Adverse Inference. 66. Admit that the reason you concealed or caused to be concealed the defendant

currency within the defendant 1993 Ford pick up truck, was to purchase controlled substances and/or transport the proceeds from the illegal sale of controlled substances. Admitted by Adverse Inference. 67. activities. Admitted by Adverse Inference. 68. Admit that the defendant funds were acquired by Camacho. Admit that the defendant currency was connected to your drug trafficking

Admitted by Adverse Inference.

A blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment Privilege is not acceptable approach to discovery requests . United States v. Rubio-Topete, 999 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1993). The

1

general rule is that the Fifth Amendment does not allow a witness to refuse to take the witness stand. Instead, he must assert his privilege "in response to specific questions propounded by the investigation body." United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735, 741 (9th Cir. 1977) (Pierce ), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 923 (1978). "Thus a blanket refusal to answer any question is unacceptable." Id. A claimant may not avoid his burden simply by asserting the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 10 S. Ct. 1548, 75 L.Ed. 2d 521 (1983). The Fifth Amendment does not prevent a court from drawing a negative inference against a party to a civil action who refuses to testify in response to probative evidence offered against him. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318-19, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1557-58, 47 L.Ed. 2d 810 (1976).
11

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 11 of 20

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

69.

Admit that Camacho acquired these funds as a result of activity involving the

illegal exchange of controlled substances. Admitted by Adverse Inference. Request for Admissions Miguel Camacho 70. Admit that you concealed or caused to be concealed United States currency

in the fuel tank of the defendant 1993 Ford pick up truck. Admitted by Adverse Inference. 71. Admit that you modified or caused to be modified, one of the two fuel tanks

on the defendant vehicle to transport controlled substances and/or the proceeds from the illegal sale of controlled substances. Admitted by Adverse Inference. 72. Admit that defendant vehicle was connected to your drug trafficking activities

Admitted by Adverse Inference. 73. Admit that you use the defendant vehicle to facilitate the unlawful sale and

or purchase of controlled substances. Admitted by Adverse Inference. 74. Admit that you have an interest in the defendant currency seized in this case.

Admitted by Adverse Inference. 75. Admit that you knew the defendant funds were concealed in the 1993 Ford

pick up owned and driven by you on June 3, 2003. Admitted by Adverse Inference. 76. Admit that you knew the defendant funds were intended to be used to acquire

illegal controlled substances. Admitted by Adverse Inference.

12

Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM

Document 58

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 12 of 20

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

Evidence Received from the Florida Investigation 77. Leonardo Maya-Martinez, Sr. and Jairo Hernandez are cooperating defendants

who have plead guilty regarding their respective participation in drug trafficking activities centered in Miami, Florida, and investigated by the South Florida Money Laundering Strike Force. Each has provided information in the form of affidavits regarding their colleague in trafficking activities, Miguel Camacho, a claimant in this action. Ex F and Ex H affidavits of Chris R. Jacobsen. 78. In June of 2002 Jairo Hernandez (Hernandez) was sent by Roberto Guillo of

Baranquilla, Colombia, to Miami, Florida to visit Miguel Camacho regarding the sale of Colombian cocaine by or through Guillo to Miguel Camacho. Ex G, ¶ 1, affidavit of Hernandez. 79. On June 4, 2002, Camacho picked up Hernandez at the airport in a white, dual

rear wheel pickup truck and took him to the home of Camacho, where Hernandez stayed for five days. Ex G, ¶ 1, affidavit of Hernandez. 80. The home of Camacho was equipped with a video surveillance system and a

hidden storage facility capable of accommodating 1000 kilograms of cocaine. Ex G, ¶ 1, affidavit of Hernandez. 81. While at the home of Camacho, Hernandez saw a kilogram of cocaine inside

of the home. Ex G, ¶ 1, affidavit of Hernandez. 82. Camacho advised Hernandez that he needed a supplier of cocaine who could

provide 1000 kilograms of cocaine every 15 to 20 days to be transported in either hollow boats from the area in or near Jamaica; or in high speed boats from ocean drops; for a fee of 30% to 35% of the cocaine transported. Ex G, ¶ 2, affidavit of Hernandez. 83. Hernandez advised that he thought the fee request of Camacho of 30% to 35%

of the cocaine transported was too high a price, to which Camacho responded the was negotiable. Ex G, ¶ 3, affidavit of Hernandez.

13 Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM Document 58 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 13 of 20

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

84.

Hernandez returned to Colombia to advise Guillo of the details of the proposal

by Camacho regarding smuggling cocaine to Florida. Ex G, ¶ 3, affidavit of Hernandez. 85. As the result of the death of another member of the criminal enterprise nothing

came from this specific contact and Hernandez no longer participated in the negotiations. Ex G, ¶ 3, affidavit of Hernandez. 86. Subsequently, Camacho told Hernandez that, after a meeting in Aruba,

Camacho and Guillo, consummated a deal for cocaine for which Camacho had sent Guillo payment. Ex G, ¶ 3, affidavit of Hernandez. 87. In 2003, Hernandez again visited Camacho at his home in Miami, Florida.

During that visit Camacho advised Hernandez that his cocaine trafficking business was doing well. Comacho was purchasing cocaine for $9,000 per kilogram in Mexico and selling it for $19,000 to $20,000 per kilogram. Ex G, ¶ 4, affidavit of Hernandez. 88. Hernandez thought this meeting was in early July of 2003. However,

surveillance records establish that the visit to Camacho's home was begun on May 21, 2003, at approximately 10:47 am when Camacho contacted Hernandez at the home of Leonardo Jose Maya Martinez and traveled to Camacho's home at about 11:19am. Note that Miguel Camacho was listed as a target of the investigation on page 3 of the attachment at the time of the investigative activity prior to the seizure of the funds. Jacobson. 89. Monitored telephone calls as part of an authorized wire tap investigation Ex H, affidavit of Chris

confirm that Hernandez was in Miami as early as May 9, 2003, and attempted to contact Camacho. During that time period Hernandez participated in the following calls related to or about Camacho as summarized in Ex H, affidavit of Chris Jacobson, and attachments: 1. May 9, 2003, 6:47 pm, call number 924: Hernandez left a voice mail message for Camacho requesting that Camacho return his call.

14 Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM Document 58 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 14 of 20

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

2. May 9, 2003, 6:48 pm, call number 925: Hernandez called again but left no message. 3. May 9, 2003, 6:51 pm, call number 926: Another call from the same number to the same number but left no message. 4. May 9, 2003, 7:57 pm, call number 932: Another call from the same number to the same number but left no message. 5. May 9, 2003, 9:36 pm, call number 946: Call from Hernandez to Miguel Camacho, Jr. in which Hernandez identifies himself as a friend of the elder Camacho and was attempting to contact the father. 6. May 10, 2003, 9:48 am, call #985: Call from Camacho to the home of Leonardo Maya Martinez. After a brief conversation, Hernandez spoke with Camacho about the fact that Hernandez had been gone and Camacho could not contact him. 7. May 10, 2003, 9:51 am, call #986: Call from Camacho to the home of Leonardo Maya Martinez regarding the address of the home of Maya Martinez. Also discussed "good projects" and a "pretty young woman", coded language related to cocaine transactions when discussed on the telephone. 8. May 10, 2003, 1:11pm, call #1093: Call on behalf of Hernandez to Camacho, Jr. regarding details of a meeting with Camacho that day. The meeting was not the subject of surveillance activity by law enforcement. 9. May 21, 2003, 9:25 am, call #1633: Call from Camacho to Leonardo Maya Martinez for Hernandez to work out details of a meeting. 10. May 21, 2003, 10:26 am, call #1640: Call from Camacho to the Maya Martinez home indicating Camacho had gotten lost and needed directions. Surveillance confirmed that Camacho arrived at the Maya Martinez home and left with Hernandez. Camacho returned to his home with Hernandez. Surveillance observed

15 Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM Document 58 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 15 of 20

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

a white 1993 Ford pickup truck with Florida license U44-SPG, registered to Camacho, which is defendant #2 in this action. 11. May 21, 2003, 2:14 pm, call #1654: Call from Camacho to the Maya Martinez residence seeking to speak with Hernandez about a "number." 12. June 4, 2003, 1:53pm, call #2589: Hernandez called the Camacho residence and inquired whether it was Miguel's birthday. Investigators determined that the use of the term "birthday" was a telephone code word for whether a criminal act involving the exchange of money for drugs had been completed and therefore a reason for a celebration. The response of the unknown female who answered the phone supported that conclusion when she advised that she did not know because she had not seen Camacho. The determination of a birthday is not dependent upon seeing the subject of the inquiry. 90. Ex H, affidavit of Chris Jacobson.

When Hernandez visited the home of Camacho, Hernandez met an individual

who was identified as the husband of Camacho's pregnant niece, whom he identified as the person in Exhibit #2 attached to his affidavit. Ex G, affidavit of Jairo Hernandez. This person is identified as Roy F. Bruno, a claimant in this action. Jacobson. 91. Hernandez identified Camacho as the person in Exhibit #1 of his affidavit. Ex H, affidavit of Chris

Ex G, affidavit of Jairo Hernandez. This person is identified as Miguel Camacho, a claimant in this action. 92. Ex H, affidavit of Chris Jacobson.

During the period of the investigation during the wire intercepts while

Hernandez was living at the Maya Martinez residence, he was never gainfully employed and only engaged in activity related to trafficking in controlled substances. Ex H, affidavit of Chris Jacobson. 93. During the period of the investigation during the wire intercepts while

Hernandez was living at the Maya Martinez residence, Leonardo Maya Martinez, Sr. and

16 Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM Document 58 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 16 of 20

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

his two sons, Julio and Leonardo, Jr., were never gainfully employed and only engaged in activity related to trafficking in controlled substances. Ex H, affidavit of Chris Jacobson. 94. Maya Martinez was introduced to Miguel Camacho in about 2002 by Alfredo

Navarro, a previous partner of Camacho's in a venture engaged in smuggling cocaine from Colombia into the United States using "go fast" boats. Ex I, ¶ 1, affidavit of Maya Martinez. 95. Navarro sent Camacho to the home of Maya Martinez to engage in

discussions related to the importation of cocaine from Colombia into the United States for the mutual benefit of the parties. Maya Martinez admitted that both he and Camacho were engaged in the buying and selling of cocaine. Ex I, ¶ 2, affidavit of Maya Martinez. 96. Maya Martinez met with Camacho to discuss and negotiate regarding a

relationship engaged in smuggling cocaine between three and five times. The last time was in approximately February or March of 2003. Ex I, ¶ 3, affidavit of Maya Martinez. 97. During these meetings Camacho told Maya Martinez about the cocaine

distribution network which he had created involving the purchase of cocaine in Mexico from Colombian sources for $8,000 per kilogram, the transportation of the cocaine from Mexico, and sale of cocaine in New York City for $26,000 per kilogram and in Miami for $20,000 per kilogram. Ex I, ¶ 1, affidavit of Maya Martinez. 98. Camacho advised Maya Martinez that he smuggled into the U.S. between

2000 and 3000 kilograms of cocaine every three months. Camacho said he stored the cocaine on a ranch near the U.S. - Mexico border, Maya believed near Tijuana. Ex I, ¶ 5, affidavit of Maya Martinez. 99. Camacho also stated that he employed mostly family members, but used a few

truck drivers who were not family members to drive different load vehicles including cars, pickup trucks and small box vans. The load vehicles have false storage areas specifically

17 Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM Document 58 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 17 of 20

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

designed to transport drugs and currency. Camacho described to Maya Martinez one vehicle which used a false gas tank. Ex I, ¶ 5, affidavit of Maya Martinez. 100. Camacho advised Maya Martinez that some of the money he pays for the

cocaine goes to Colombian sources and some goes to the Mexican transportation organizations. Camacho personally drives large amounts of cash to Mexico to make the payments to the transportation organizations. Ex I, ¶ 6, affidavit of Maya Martinez. 101. Maya Martinez identified Exhibit #1, attached to his affidavit as a photo of

Miguel Camacho, a claimant in this action. Ex I, ¶ 7, affidavit of Maya Martinez and Ex H, affidavit of Chris Jacobson. 102. Maya Martinez was involved in the telephone call activity described above

in paragraph number 89 involving Jairo Hernandez, a guest in his home during the relevant time period. 103. Based upon the minimum figures stated by CAMACHO of 2,000 kilos per

quarter of the year, the average volume of cocaine trafficking activity is approximately 155 kilos per week. Based upon sales at the minimum price of $20,000 per kilo and a purchase price of $8,000 per kilo, the minimum gross profit of this criminal enterprise is $1,860,000 per week. Using the maximum figures, the gross profit would be $4,140,000 per week. The operation described by CAMACHO would easily have generated the sum of $493,850 in a week's time, and would represent the purchase price of approximately 60 kilos of cocaine. At the stated purchase price of $8,000 per kilo of cocaine, 155 kilos would cost $1,240,000 in Mexico. The operation of such a large trafficking organization requires the movement of substantial amounts of currency from the base of operation in Miami, Florida to Mexico. Ex H, affidavit of Chris Jacobsen.

18 Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM Document 58 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 18 of 20

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

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of August, 2005. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona S/ REID C. PIXLER Assistant U.S. Attorney

19 Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM Document 58 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 19 of 20

1 2
X

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 24, 2005, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________

3 4 5 6 7 X 8 9 10 11 12 13

I hereby certify that on August 24, 2005, I served the attached document by U.S. mail, on the following, who are not registered participants of the CM/ECF System: Richard B. Jones 273 South Scott Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

S/ Victoria Tiffany

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

20 Case 2:03-cv-02345-VAM Document 58 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 20 of 20