Anjelica "AJ" Hadsell - COD: "Heroin Poisoning"

[Hatfield]

I wish NPD would release an official statement about the current status of their investigation. It's confusing that they used Wes' behavior as probable cause to search his hotel room yet haven't even named him as a POI. If that information wasn't in the federal documents would we ever even hear about it? Now that the cat is out of the bag there's no reason to keep the public in the dark.

How serious was NPD about believing Wes abducted AJ? Solid belief or was it just to get the search warrant? Do they have more evidence beyond what they observed during their surveillance? Argh! Talk to us NPD!!

Agree.

I have seen other trials where the defense brings up that LE once said X and now they are saying Y so I kind of understand why LE does not want to box themselves in with any theories or statements.

But I too wish they would use the public more and not leave the public hanging with questions. It does more harm than good when they allow rumors and speculation to run rampant in the community.

They could at least make some general statements of the status.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

So...items recovered from the hotel included duct tape (not all that unusual, imo, considering his line of work), white socks, a game system, a laptop, shoes, and paperwork. I'm assuming the white socks and shoes were either AJ's or WH's and LE wanted to test them, the game system was probably to check for her prints (?) or because the content was relevant in some way, the laptop is obvious, but what the heck is the "paperwork" all about, I wonder? My first thought was that it was some kind of work order that put him in Franklin, but who knows?

Curious.

 

[Happyshoes]

So...items recovered from the hotel included duct tape (not all that unusual, imo, considering his line of work), white socks, a game system, a laptop, shoes, and paperwork. I'm assuming the white socks and shoes were either AJ's or WH's and LE wanted to test them, the game system was probably to check for her prints (?) or because the content was relevant in some way, the laptop is obvious, but what the heck is the "paperwork" all about, I wonder? My first thought was that it was some kind of work order that put him in Franklin, but who knows?

Curious.

All good questions, good probabilities - thanks for checking in. Between the fingerprints and the phone records, I do hope LE has their ducks lined up. Hard to go back and imagine what they put CF through with all that bs. Hope we hear more soon.

 

[Happyshoes]

I wish NPD would release an official statement about the current status of their investigation. It's confusing that they used Wes' behavior as probable cause to search his hotel room yet haven't even named him as a POI. If that information wasn't in the federal documents would we ever even hear about it? Now that the cat is out of the bag there's no reason to keep the public in the dark.

How serious was NPD about believing Wes abducted AJ? Solid belief or was it just to get the search warrant? Do they have more evidence beyond what they observed during their surveillance? Argh! Talk to us NPD!!

I so agree with you! Getting ridiculous with hardly any real facts. Did they base their belief on WH being the last person to have seen her? Why were they tailing him in the first place and why didn't they search his vehicles (as another WSer said).

 

[Momoffourboys]

Even if it was voluntary then I think she may have been talked into it. The old "C'mon try it you will like it".

If others were doing it and she was around them then the peer pressure could have made her agree to doing it. Even if it was an accidental overdose at first then I think it may have become a crime when they did not immediately call 911. Especially if steps were taken to coverup stuff or make it look like something else.

Bingo.
I think Wes's hotel room was a hangout. The game system...

IMO No coincidence that AJ died of a heroin overdose and Wes was charged with possession. Nope.

 

[ThatGuyBear]

I so agree with you! Getting ridiculous with hardly any real facts. Did they base their belief on WH being the last person to have seen her? Why were they tailing him in the first place and why didn't they search his vehicles (as another WSer said).

They did search the vehicles. Both the red truck and his work van.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

They did search the vehicles. Both the red truck and his work van.

Maybe that's where they found the heroin.

 

[Mountaingazer]

The gaming system was probably to check for any communications through the device. We are not gamers here we have a wii for just dance and Netflix lol. But my best friend's hubby uses his Playstation to chat with friends all the time.

 

[Momoffourboys]

The gaming system was probably to check for any communications through the device. We are not gamers here we have a wii for just dance and Netflix lol. But my best friend's hubby uses his Playstation to chat with friends all the time.

My money is on Wes being a gamer. I know his nephbro is.

 

[DexterMorgan]

My money is on Wes being a gamer. I know his nephbro is.

I don't think wes was a gamer persay. I think he just knew the younger crowd did like gaming and he wanted to seem cool.

Imo. Wes isn't the kiddie social media type either. He is a hands on guy. Contracting and coke using and heroine selling while picking up chicks at the bar. Or most likely the younger naive ones that will play his games for some cocaine.

Now since cocaine will keep females wide awake and searching for more. Heroin doesn't do that. It simply makes the user comatose and easily over powered.

So i think he was a coke head who wanted AJ on heroin. So he could eventually be her dealer with the hopes of her agreeing to pay by other means in the future. Jmo.

But he didn't expect this athlete oding right away. Jmo

 

[razzledazzle]

^^^^^^ I have had thoughts along the same lines. Wes telling her it was Coke when it was not.

 

[Vail]

I could never be a defense attorney. Challenging probable cause after everything Wes had done up to that point? Seriously?! This statement is gold:

"I think this evidence applies to other individuals," Korslund says. "There was other individuals in this hotel room who may have had a motive to harm AJ who had a closer relationship than just her step dad. He`s one piece of the puzzle."

Which is it Korslund, did the police find evidence justifying their probable cause or was AJ never in the room? What evidence is it that you feel is connecting AJ to the hotel room and to Wes?

If Wes hasn't been charged with abduction or murder of AJ, why is he even worried about this? We are talking about a federal weapons charge and heroin possession, both of which are reportedly unrelated charges. But there were other people who may have motive and a closer relationship, not just Wes. Wes, a piece of the puzzle, admits his laywer.

We know who else was there based on their own testimony so it would seem this lawyer is preparing to throw anyone else under the bus he possibly can whether they are innocent or not.

TGB has anyone else besides CS and AB been found to have been there or come forward to admit they were there?

 

[jnblsm]

I don't think wes was a gamer persay. I think he just knew the younger crowd did like gaming and he wanted to seem cool.

Imo. Wes isn't the kiddie social media type either. He is a hands on guy. Contracting and coke using and heroine selling while picking up chicks at the bar. Or most likely the younger naive ones that will play his games for some cocaine.

Now since cocaine will keep females wide awake and searching for more. Heroin doesn't do that. It simply makes the user comatose and easily over powered.

So i think he was a coke head who wanted AJ on heroin. So he could eventually be her dealer with the hopes of her agreeing to pay by other means in the future. Jmo.

But he didn't expect this athlete oding right away. Jmo

Interesting, Dex.
I was just about to ask what the difference in effects coke vs heroin were.

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

Case 2:15-cr-00116-AWA-RJK Document 18 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 93
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) Criminal No. 2:15cr116
) Hon. Arenda Wright Allen
WESLEY PAUL HADSELL, )
)
Defendants. )
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Defendant Wesley Paul Hadsell (“Mr. Hadsell&#8221, by counsel, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3)(c)
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, moves this Court to enter an order suppressing from evidence at the trial of this
matter all evidence obtained from Mr. Hadsell’s hotel room on or about March 20, 2015. In
support of this motion, defendant submits the following:

BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2015 at 4:58 p.m., Investigator R.A. Stocks of the Norfolk Police
Department’s Vice and Narcotics unit, submitted an affidavit for a search warrant to search room
129 of America’s Best Inn located at 1850 E. Little Creek Road in Norfolk, Virginia in an effort
to find evidence related to an abduction offense. Subsequent to the magistrate approving/signing
the search warrant, police conducted a search of the hotel room where Mr. Hadsell had been
staying. While conducting the search, the officers also seized, amongst some additional items,
ammunition.
Mr. Hadsell was subsequently arrested on a Criminal Complaint on September 9, 2015
and charged with felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). At a

Case 2:15-cr-00116-AWA-RJK Document 18 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 9 PageID# 94

preliminary hearing held on September 14, 2015, Magistrate Judge Krask found probable cause.1

On September 16, 2015, a one count Indictment was returned again charging Mr. Hadsell with
felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 924(e).
On September 23, 2015, Mr. Hadsell appeared before the Court for an arraignment and entered a
plea of not guilty. Trial is scheduled, with a jury, for November 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

 

[arkansasmimi]

LEGAL STANDARDS
The Fourth Amendment protects, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and “shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S.
Const. amend. IV. A “‘search’ occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to
consider reasonable is infringed” and a “‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some
meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property,” United States
v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).
To search an area and seize items, a valid warrant is needed unless an exception exists.
To obtain a valid warrant, a sworn statement in writing that sets forth sufficient facts to show that
the items sought are related to the criminal activity under investigation, and that they reasonably
may be expected to be located in the place to be searched must be presented to the clerk or
justice. United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 118 (4th Cir. 1996). The warrant application
must be supported by an affidavit, which contains all information on which the magistrate relies
to establish probable cause to search. Id.
_____________
1
The Court also granted the Government’s motion for detention. See ECF No. 12.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Case 2:15-cr-00116-AWA-RJK Document 18 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 9 PageID# 95

The judge hearing a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant
must consider only the warrant affidavit in deciding if there is probable cause to issue the
warrant. Probable cause to search exists when, at the time the magistrate issues the warrant,
there are reasonably trustworthy facts which, given the totality of the circumstances, are
sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe that the items sought constitute fruits,
instrumentalities, or evidence of crime and will be present at the time and place of the search.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983); United States v. Suarez, 906 F.2d 977, 984 (4th Cir.
1990). Probable cause must be demonstrated in the affidavit, which cannot be supplemented
with extrinsic facts. Probable cause is less than evidence which would justify conviction, but
more than “bare suspicion” and observations as consistent with innocence as criminal activity do
not satisfy the standard. Porterfield v. Lott, 156 F.3d 563 (4th Cir.1998) (internal citations
omitted).
The affidavit must demonstrate a nexus between each item described in the warrant and
the criminal activity under investigation. It is not enough to show that the items to be seized are
material to a criminal investigation; there must be probable cause to believe they would be
incriminating. A search warrant is invalid if the underlying facts in the affidavit do not provide a
nexus to the place targeted for search. See United States v. Anderson, 851 F.2d 727, 729 (4th
Cir.1988) (“[T]he nexus between the place to be searched and the items to be seized may be
established by the nature of the item and the normal inferences of where one would likely keep
such evidence.&#8221. Although a “warrant is not invalid for failure to produce direct evidence that
the items to be seized will be found at a particular location,” there must be probable cause that

 

[arkansasmimi]

Case 2:15-cr-00116-AWA-RJK Document 18 Filed 10/07/15 Page 4 of 9 PageID# 96

the items to be seized will be found in the place to be searched. United States v. Lalor, 996 F.2d
1578, 1582 (4th Cir. 1993); Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 556 & n. 6 (1978).
Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of a
criminal defendant's constitutional rights is inadmissible against him. Weeks v. United States,
232 U.S. 383, 398 (1914); see also United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974) (when
evidence is obtained in violation of this constitutional right, it should be excluded from trial in
order to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights). There are three purposes served by the
exclusionary rule. First, the rule was judicially fashioned to deter the police from illegal conduct
by removing any incentive to disregard constitutional requirements. Second, the enforcement of
the exclusionary rule protects the integrity of the judiciary by ensuring that convictions will be
secured without the benefit of evidence acquired illegally. Finally, the rule protects the public
interest in individual privacy by assuring people that the government will not be allowed to profit
from unwarranted intrusions. Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011).
While the exclusionary rule provides the basis for suppression of evidence, it is the fruit
of the poisonous tree doctrine articulated in Wong Sun v. United States that determines the scope
of exclusion. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963); see also Silverthorne Lumber Co.
v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 391-92, (1920). Simply stated, any piece of evidence or
information obtained as a result of government illegality is a “fruit” of the illegality and may not
be offered as evidence or used by the government to obtain evidence against someone whose
rights have been violated.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Case 2:15-cr-00116-AWA-RJK Document 18 Filed 10/07/15 Page 5 of 9 PageID# 97

ARGUMENT
The evidence obtained from the search should be excluded because the warrant was not
issued upon probable cause, and thus the evidence was illegally obtained.
Mr. Hadsell was renting room 129 at America’s Best Inn located at 1850 E. Little Creek
Road in Norfolk, Virginia and was living there when it was searched and items were seized.
Thus, Mr. Hadsell has standing because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area
searched and items seized by law enforcement, and society recognizes one’s hotel room as
having a reasonable expectation of privacy. See Katz v United States, 389 U.S 347 (1967).
Even given the totality of the circumstance, the affidavit upon which the search warrant
relied lacks probable cause that the items to be seized will be found in the place to be searched.
First, the affidavit lacks probable cause because it relies on Mr. Hadsell’s alleged criminal
history as a reason to believe that evidence of a current, separate crime would be found in his
hotel room. In United States v. Powell, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that
officers’ knowledge of a prior record alone was not sufficient for reasonable suspicion. United
States v. Powell, 666 F.3d 180, 188 (4th Cir. 2011); see also, e.g., United States v. Davis, 94 F.3d
1465, 1469 (10th Cir.1996) (finding that defendant’s prior criminal record “is not, standing
alone, sufficient to create reasonable suspicion.&#8221. Thus, Mr. Hadsell’s alleged prior record does
not even amount to reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause, that items to be seized would
be found in his hotel.
Secondly, the affidavit lacks probable cause because it relies on Mr. Hadsell’s “erratic”
driving and “attempting to determine if surveillance was being conducted” as reasons to believe
that evidence of an abduction would be found in his hotel room. In United States v. Massenburg

 

[arkansasmimi]

Case 2:15-cr-00116-AWA-RJK Document 18 Filed 10/07/15 Page 6 of 9 PageID# 98

the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the defendant’s nervous or furtive behavior
and presence in a high crime area were not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. 654 F.
3d 480, 486 (4th Cir. 2011). Again, erratic driving and attempting to determine if surveillance
was being conducted, which it was, do not even amount to reasonable suspicion, let alone
probable cause.
Thirdly, Investigator Stocks’ affidavit states that while surveilling Mr. Hadsell, detectives
observed him “changing clothing and at one point even wore a mask that concealed his face.” In
United States v. Sprinkle, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found there was no
reasonable suspicion where officers were aware of a defendant’s past criminal record; events
occurred in a high crime area; and the defendant attempted to hide his face and closely huddled
with another person in vehicle. 106 F.3d 613, 617 (4th Cir. 1997). Similarly here, Mr. Hadsell’s
attempt to hide his face with a mask, in addition to his criminal record noted above, do not
amount to reasonable suspicion, and thus not probable cause. See also United States v. Foster,
634 F. 3d 243; 246-47 (4th Cir. 2011) (combination of factors including officer’s knowledge of
defendant’s prior record, defendant being in crouched position in vehicle, defendant engaging in
erratic activity with his arms, not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion; court noting
disapprovingly of “the inclination of government to use whatever facts necessary to establish
reasonable suspicion&#8221.
Given that a tip on the Crimeline about a prior alleged similar incident, reports of Mr.
Hadsell driving “erratically” and “attempting to determine if surveillance was being conducted”
does not amount to probable cause, that leaves only Mr. Hadsell’s alleged inconsistent
statements, video (or lack of video) from the gas station depicting nothing, and Ms. Angelica

 

[arkansasmimi]

Case 2:15-cr-00116-AWA-RJK Document 18 Filed 10/07/15 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 99

Hadsell’s lack of phone use and social media updates as potential probable cause to believe that
evidence of Ms. Hadsell’s abduction would be found in Mr. Hadsell’s hotel room. However,
statements in the affidavit regarding these instances do not amount to probable cause either.
Inconsistent statements and Ms. Hadsell’s shortage of posts on her social media pages does not
provide probable cause that there would be evidence of abduction in Mr. Hadsell’s hotel room.
The search warrant is invalid because the underlying facts in the affidavit do not provide a nexus
to the place targeted for search.
Moreover, the affidavit notes that “AB,” who had known Ms. Hadsell since sixth grade
and participated in her search, “observed a folded blue windbreaker”, later identified to belong to
Ms. Hadsell, in Ms. Hadsell’s ex-boyfriend’s bedroom. If anything, such information at the time
the affidavit was written would give rise to probable cause to search Ms. Hadsell’s exboyfriend’s
house, not Mr. Hadsell’s hotel room.
Lastly, it is well noted in the affidavit that detectives observed Mr. Hadsell from on or
about March 11, 2015, until March 20, 2015. The affidavit states that on March 11, 2015,
“physical and mobile surveillance was established on Wesley Hadsell’s known hotel room
located at 1850 East Little Creek Road, MD International Hotel.” The affidavit goes on to state
the detectives’ findings from their surveillance, all of which report only on his driving habits.
In United States v. Daughtery, probable cause for issuance of a search warrant of the
defendant’s residence was found when police drove past the defendant’s residence and
personally observed marijuana plants from the road. United States v. Daughtery, 215 F. App'x
314 (4th Cir. 2007). In United States v. Williams, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
held that the totality of facts established fair probability that drug paraphernalia would be found