Wesley Hadsell Arrested 21-22 March 2015

[arkansasmimi]

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]

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 ex-boyfriend’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

 

[arkansasmimi]

in the defendant’s motel room because three weeks before the motel search, police found drug paraphernalia in the defendant’s residence. United States v. Williams, 974 F.2d 480, 481–82 (4th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Hawkins, 788 F.2d 200, 204 (4th Cir.) (surveillance connected drug activity to defendant's residence), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 850 (1986).
Here, unlike Daughtery and Williams, police surveillance did not observe any signs of the alleged offense, nor did they observe any indication that evidence of a crime would be found in Mr. Hadsell’s hotel room. Where no evidence connects the alleged offense to the residence, the courts have found the warrant defective. See, e.g., United States v. Ramos, 923 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir.1991) (finding no probable cause where surveillance did not lead to facts making it likely that items officers sought were located in apartment).
Given the totality of the circumstances, the search warrant in this case was not based upon probable cause and all evidence seized pursuant to this search should be suppressed. Similarly, an exception to the warrant requirement does not apply.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Again, jmo, everything goes back to the Witness statements, to get the search warrant.. in which the ammo was found.

 

[Happyshoes]

Wait! They found her phone? I thought they were just looking for her phone based on some sort of tip.
If they did find her phone, it surely would have had a lot of telling info on it!

Oh rats! I'm so sorry I said 'found' her phone. I was coming in from dinner (and drinks), getting ready to watch football, and of course, had to check in on AJ. I wonder where the gun and AJ's phone went. I don't think the gun had anything to do with AJ's death, just that it's suspicious considering the amount of ammo bought. Wish we had more technical info to go on, and again, my apologies, fellow sleuthers. (I almost said apologies to the 'gang' but thought better of it, lol). Peace for AJ!

 

[Happyshoes]

Again, jmo, everything goes back to the Witness statements, to get the search warrant.. in which the ammo was found.

You are awesome, thank you! When will they rule on this, if you know? He does present a good argument, his driving habits may not be enough. I don't know enough to answer that - anybody else? Can someone tell me the best news station to follow for updates, too, please?

 

[Pisces22]

You are awesome, thank you! When will they rule on this, if you know? He does present a good argument, his driving habits may not be enough. I don't know enough to answer that - anybody else? Can someone tell me the best news station to follow for updates, too, please?

WTKR News Channel 3: http://wavy.com - Marissa Jasek covers a lot of the AJ related news stories and has done the more recent jailhouse interviews.

WAVY 10 News: http://wtkr.com - Joe Fisher is the typical reporter that speaks w/ AJ's family and covers related stories. He conducted the first few jailhouse interviews w/ WH.

Virginia Pilot: http://pilotonline.com

 

[alexwood]

About these kinds of phones. In most cases they're older generation phones, from what's currently popular. You can get them at any grocery store, convenience store, etc. for as cheap as $25. I know, because I just bought two of them (temporary replacement phones for two of my teens). If you don't already have a plan with a carrier, you buy the pay-as-you-go minutes from the same carrier as the phone. If you DO already have a plan, you can just toss the new sim card that comes with the phone and put yours in (from your old or broken phone - or go get a new one from your carrier if your phone was lost or stolen), and off you go.

I suppose most people buying these phones are not using their main carrier. Most are just paying cash for the phone, buying the pay-as-you-go minutes and using it for illegal purposes. Unless you login to your google account or any SM accounts (which will identify you as the user & pull in all your google & social related stuffs) it's pretty much anonymous as to who actually owns the phone. You can even name your phone anything you want, such as "This Is Not Wes' Drug Phone". However, all your contacts, images & location data will be recorded on the sim card, so if LE does ever get ahold of the phone, they'd know that phone was routinely in contact with certain people, and where good ole Wes' phone was (physical location), on a regular basis.

So let's say, just for kicks, WH did actually have a second phone but he never used it for logging into social media, google or anything that could actually identify the phone (or the primary user at best) as being his. It would however still contain:

All incoming and outgoing numbers of texts and calls (which would include all family/friends/associates that had that number or that he ever called/texted)
All images received, taken or downloaded
Physical locations every time that phone bounced off a tower (such as, Millard St. E. Little Creek, out in Franklin and anywhere else he was on a regular basis, such as wherever he went to buy his cocaine he's admitted to using)

That's more than enough to be damning to him, if LE got ahold of it and had their forensics IT person run the sim card.

Thanks, OM. I did not know any of this! Very interesting . . . and i'm sure WH had a "field day" with his secret extra phone. Maybe even using it to call in "tips" anonymously to LE?

Do you know why the phones are referred to as "burners"? Or is that term no longer used?

 

[alexwood]

What if he threw that burner phone in the water somewhere? Along with the gun? When was that picture of him on SM showing him fishing somewhere with a quip about it? There may be some truth (to a degree) in that photo. Or it could be complete bs. I can't help but go with my gut theory which was that WH was obsessed with AJ - the picture of her graduation or whatever that was still haunts me -everyone can write it off if they want; no worries. But I also think he had a lot of pix of her at the gun range. I can picture him now showing her how to hold the gun. Could LE possibly know if her phone was on the bed beside him in that motel room, at least on that date 3/20? I can't remember when they found her phone at the moment. At that property with the pond, right? Grrrrrrr!!!

Happy, very excellent post. I am happy that you think the same way I do! (My way ... or the highway!) I think he was obsessed with AJ too -- maybe 5 years ago, she was in the bud of the teen years. As she matured, I do believe that's when the obsession set in. It went (IMO--Moo!) full-blown when he was kicked out by JH and exiled to the Motel. I think he viewed his tie to AJ"s mom as having been severed. That left him free to pursue any relationship he chose. Since AJ was not a "blood relative", he felt he was entitled to set his sights on AJ. But something tells me that AJ was anything but obsessed with WH. But he didn't find that out until the day he decided to "fish" rather than just "cut bait." I think he propositioned her and she refused his advances. Or maybe his approach was just: "Oh, we'll just hang out together -- since I don't get to see much of 'my daughter' anymore now that I have been given the boot." Trying to keep it casual until he was able to lure her into his lair (or, "hidey hole"?). Then he'd really put his cards on the table and see if AJ was receptive.

As far as AJ's phone actually being on the bed in his motel room, I think LE told him that just to frighten him into a confession. Because I believe another astute WSer gave us the lowdown on cell tower pings. The hotel would have been in the tower's "ping range", but maybe also the self-storage facility nearby. So, the ping I don't think could be pinpointed specifically to a piece of furniture in his motel room. But I think LE was hoping that WH could be hoodwinked.

One question that has been bothering me: Was AJ's phone ever recovered?

All Moo-oo!

 

[Happyshoes]

Happy, very excellent post. I am happy that you think the same way I do! (My way ... or the highway!) I think he was obsessed with AJ too -- maybe 5 years ago, she was in the bud of the teen years. As she matured, I do believe that's when the obsession set in. It went (IMO--Moo!) full-blown when he was kicked out by JH and exiled to the Motel. I think he viewed his tie to AJ"s mom as having been severed. That left him free to pursue any relationship he chose. Since AJ was not a "blood relative", he felt he was entitled to set his sights on AJ. But something tells me that AJ was anything but obsessed with WH. But he didn't find that out until the day he decided to "fish" rather than just "cut bait." I think he propositioned her and she refused his advances. Or maybe his approach was just: "Oh, we'll just hang out together -- since I don't get to see much of 'my daughter' anymore now that I have been given the boot." Trying to keep it casual until he was able to lure her into his lair (or, "hidey hole"?). Then he'd really put his cards on the table and see if AJ was receptive.

As far as AJ's phone actually being on the bed in his motel room, I think LE told him that just to frighten him into a confession. Because I believe another astute WSer gave us the lowdown on cell tower pings. The hotel would have been in the tower's "ping range", but maybe also the self-storage facility nearby. So, the ping I don't think could be pinpointed specifically to a piece of furniture in his motel room. But I think LE was hoping that WH could be hoodwinked.

One question that has been bothering me: Was AJ's phone ever recovered?

All Moo-oo!

Thank you so much, I'm not totally crazy. I, too, think he got in that relationship with his sights set on AJ (or it started at some point). I think he lured her over to the hotel, too (hidey hole, struck my funny bone) - whether he took her, gave her a ride, or she walked over there. Was she going to get some coke to do with her girlfriends so she went? Who knows? Could he have forced the bad mix on her or it just went south? Again, speculation on my part but something went terribly wrong IMO. I still have trouble with the GoPro story unless it was just bs over some money he withdrew or something. Money he tried to say he gave AJ at the gas station?
I can see LE saying that about AJ's phone to WH to get a reaction from him, you're right about that. It would be great if they have it but I think others were right, it wasn't found. They searched the pond area for it, though - not sure where that tip came from. I'm in the dark on both their cell phones (or all 3, I guess). I think LE knows where he was, why he was late to work, all the bs clues, etc. and they have a good theory. JMO, etc. but it can boil down to something that common (obsession fueled by drugs). I won't get that first picture I saw of him holding her out of my mind and I'm willing to bet there were tons more on his phone. He didn't want to get rid of that one just the burner phone, no pictures on that one. *Sigh***

 

[Ontario Mom]

Thanks, OM. I did not know any of this! Very interesting . . . and i'm sure WH had a "field day" with his secret extra phone. Maybe even using it to call in "tips" anonymously to LE?

Do you know why the phones are referred to as "burners"? Or is that term no longer used?

I've never known anyone in person that actually calls a cheap phone a "burner" (but then again I don't hang out with druggies, so maybe they do actually call it that?). I've only ever heard that on tv. It got the name from being disposable, or burned.

 

[Ontario Mom]

One question that has been bothering me: Was AJ's phone ever recovered?

It has never been disclosed publicly by LE, if AJ's phone has ever been recovered.

 

[missingm]

Again, jmo, everything goes back to the Witness statements, to get the search warrant.. in which the ammo was found.

I think it goes back to that and Wes's own statements. He said he was at the gas station with AJ, but the video shows otherwise. He pretended to not know about the jacket, then made up that his wife told him about it. And AJ hadn't just stopped texting, it was weeks at that point.

On a related note, the "Argument" you posted appears to indicate that Wes' lawyer now has a copy of the affidavit. Is that true?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi, there. Vail asked me to stop by to answer some legal questions, but I'm a little unclear on what the questions are. Based on Vail's PM to me and reading a few pages of this thread, I can clarify:

1. It seems that the defense attorney was saying that he/she had seen a search warrant affidavit for the hotel room, but not for the phone. The usual reason for this would be that the search warrant for the phone contained information that was still being investigated, and if the POI knew what was in the affidavit he might be able to thwart the investigation. Or the affidavit would reveal a witness who might be in danger from the POI if the POI knew he/she had spoken to police.

2. The attorney argued that, without the search warrant for the phone, the attorney couldn't say whether there was any problem with the probable cause recited, so the phone evidence should not be permitted until and unless the attorney could see the affidavit. This makes sense, unless the phone was indeed turned over voluntarily, in which case who cares if there was probable cause.

3. I didn't see anything about the attorney trying to use this issue (about the phone search warrant affidavit) to get around the hotel room search warrant--if he/she is objecting to THAT warrant, it's probably based on information in THAT affidavit.

4. If incriminating evidence unrelated to the crime being investigated is obtained by LE in any situation in which it is OK for LE to be looking where they're looking, they can use that evidence in a new case alleging a new crime. So if you say to LE, "I wasn't texting while driving! Go ahead and look at my texts! Nothing in or out for hours!" and then the officer looks and the text right on top is your drug dealer saying, "Hey man do you want this meth or not?" then LE can use that evidence against you. Or if LE gets a search warrant to see if you have a kidnap victim in your home, and they walk in and look in all the places you might stash the kid, and don't find the kid but they DO find multiple bricks of cocaine stacked up in the basement, they can use that evidence against you. A search warrant dictates what LE should be looking for, but if they happen to see something else in plain sight or in a place they could reasonably be looking for the stuff listed on the search warrant, they don't have to just ignore it.

 

[Hoosgirl]

AZlawyer, thank you so much for stopping in! You are a gem. Thank you for always being so generous at WS with helping us understand legal stuff.

 

[Happyshoes]

Do we think Wes turned over his phone voluntarily? I don't think he went there expecting to be arrested, just to answer some questions. Am I wrong? Didn't he say he went in at 9am? I wish I was smarter!

 

[katydid23]

Do we think Wes turned over his phone voluntarily? I don't think he went there expecting to be arrested, just to answer some questions. Am I wrong? Didn't he say he went in at 9am? I wish I was smarter!

Knowing Wes as well as I do [ lol, just by his lengthy speeches etc] ---it would not surprise me one bit if he voluntarily allowed them to look at his phone. He had a burner that probably had the most incriminating stuff. And he probably had already showed them the 'texts from AJ' days earlier. So they probably asked very politely and pretended it was no big deal and he complied. JMO

ETA: Also, I don't think he knew yet that they were looking in his wall vent and had found his stashed illegal ammo and his drug scale.

 

[Happyshoes]

Knowing Wes as well as I do [ lol, just by his lengthy speeches etc] ---it would not surprise me one bit if he voluntarily allowed them to look at his phone. He had a burner that probably had the most incriminating stuff. And he probably had already showed them the 'texts from AJ' days earlier. So they probably asked very politely and pretended it was no big deal and he complied. JMO

ETA: Also, I don't think he knew yet that they were looking in his wall vent and had found his stashed illegal ammo and his drug scale.

YESSS! Now I get a better picture; I can see that. Gracias. WH is such a mess of a person, I almost feel sorry for him BUT I don't; we just can't have these guys around our children. And she was still a child just starting to grow, IMO. I am writing as if he's guilty, but that's what I feel. I'd like to know what went on the week or two prior to her coming home. Too much chaos, that's for sure.

 

[Happyshoes]

I'm a little confused (as usual), but LE got a warrant based only on WH's driving habits and used that to search his hotel room? There was a separate warrant for his phone? All they found in the hotel room was the scales with residue and the ammo, correct? Sorry, guys.

 

[katydid23]

YESSS! Now I get a better picture; I can see that. Gracias. WH is such a mess of a person, I almost feel sorry for him BUT I don't; we just can't have these guys around our children. And she was still a child just starting to grow, IMO. I am writing as if he's guilty, but that's what I feel. I'd like to know what went on the week or two prior to her coming home. Too much chaos, that's for sure.

I have always been very suspicious of him. Especially after his BS story of the awkward gas station meet-up and seeing the picture of him with his arms in her chest area, when she was 13 and he barely knew her. . That showed me he had no boundaries. JMO

But there is something else that has always simmered slowly in my sub-conscious. For several years I attended group meetings for survivors of child abuse/incest. There is one 'story' that was told and retold, so many times, painfully, and shockingly. The general outline goes:

Adolescent/teen/college girl, returns home to see family after her mom's divorce. The father/stepfather/step-grandfather reaches out to the girl and wants to see her, and spend time together. She thinks it is fair as it is not her divorcing him. So she agrees to go on a weekend visit or family trip somewhere fun.---- 'family time'

And then she is blindsided at some point. Often he will get her drunk or stoned first. Sitting in a hotel room, drinking or doing drugs. Then 'dad/stepdad' suddenly declares their 'LOVE' and says that they are no longer father/daughter since the divorce happened...and sometimes the daughter escapes.

But the girls that I heard this tragic story from did not usually 'escape.' Often they were too drunk. Or they were really damaged and needy. Sometimes they were confused and did nothing, then felt guilty and kept it a toxic secret.

But I heard the above meme many many times. Many versions of the same sick, twisted story. A few times it was the stepmom's and their sons.