Intercasino and Cryptologic most probably financed with heroin dirty money!
Drugs Mystery Man Bill Scott driving in a Cadillac, arrested in Washington with $ 20,000 and a stolen passport…
Bill Scott was clearly involved with heroin traffickers who were all later imprisoned. They dealt in 85% pure heroin, deadly stuff, and Bill Scott was part of the criminal syndicate.
Special agents of The Department of Justice, assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration, worked undercover to track down the criminal syndicate.
The document reproduced below is 100% original and not edited, and the source is court records.
Frank Wallace, a resident of Fayetteville, North Carolina, sold heroin supplied by Ellis Sutton. Fayetteville is near the Army's Fort Bragg, where Leslie Atkinson and Sutton often gambled. Wallace met Daniel Burch in Fayetteville where Burch also gambled. In 1971, Burch requested a loan from Wallace to use female couriers for importing heroin from Thailand to avoid getting the heroin from Leslie Atkinson. Wallace refused the loan, but Burch repeated his request in 1972. Wallace again refused. According [*6] to Ellis Sutton, in 1971 or 1972, Daniel Burch received heroin from Atkinson in Goldsboro in lieu of the money Burch lost to Herman Jackson.
Carol Brantley was released from prison in 1967. Brantley returned to Akron and began using heroin. She lived with Rose Love on Fifth Avenue. Love also used heroin and the pair sold heroin as well. Brantley was again imprisoned until late 1972. Daniel Burch and James Williams gambled together during the late 1960's or early 1970's. Alma Jean Jones, a heroin user, arrived in Akron in 1970 and soon moved in with Daniel Burch at 811 Easter Avenue, where Burch lived with his parents.
In 1971, Daniel Burch requested Jones to choose a woman to accompany her overseas for him. Jones introduced her friend, Linda Kirby, to Burch and learned from Burch that a "Rose" was going to sell heroin for him. Using a printing press he owned, Burch prepared a false military identification for Kirby. Jones also obtained a false military identification. Around the summer of 1972, Jones, Kirby and Daniel Burch went to Okinawa. Jones and Kirby went on to Bangkok where, according to Jones, they received heroin from David Burch. While he was in Okinawa, Daniel [*7] Burch bought a Cadillac automobile, which was titled in Akron to James Williams.
Jones and Kirby returned to Okinawa. Jones remained there with the heroin after Daniel Burch and Kirby returned to the United States. Daniel Burch eventually sent Casandra Smith and Kirby over to Okinawa to bring back the heroin.
Jones returned to Akron and lived in a house rented by Daniel Burch at 406 Bishop Street. Burch and Rose Love purchased a house at 252 Kingston Street. Jones sold heroin for Daniel Burch from 406 Bishop Street until late 1972 when she again became addicted to heroin and Rose Love became established on Kingston Street. Andrew Meddley and Thelma Meddley, among others, also sold heroin for Daniel Burch. Burch was getting heroin from Goldsboro, North Carolina. Also in late 1972, Thomas Wilson began selling heroin for James Williams and in the spring of 1973 saw Williams get heroin from Daniel Burch. Jerome Powell and Alfred Oaks also sold heroin for James Williams in 1973.
In July of 1973, James Williams asked Thomas Wilson to go overseas to pick up heroin for Daniel Burch. Wilson refused. In August, Carol Brantley and William Scott were arrested in Washington, D.C., where [*8] Brantley was attempting to obtain a passport. Brantley and Scott were driving the Cadillac purchased by Daniel Burch in Okinawa and titled to James Williams. Brantley and Scott had some $ 20,000, which was later claimed by James Williams, and a passport belonging to Daniel Burch. Brantley, who was again imprisoned, until early 1976, needed the passport she was seeking for a purported vacation in Paris. In late 1973, Daniel Burch traveled to France, taking James Williams' Cadillac with him.
Rose Love, Thelma Meddley, Alfred Oaks, Andrew Meddley and Jerome Powell continued to sell heroin in 1974. During that year, all of the houses where they stayed were searched. All were eventually imprisoned, most on drug charges stemming from the searches. Carol Brantley was receiving heroin from Daniel Burch while in the reformatory and selling some of it to other inmates. Daniel Burch again visited the home of Leslie Atkinson.
In 1976, Leslie Atkinson was in federal custody, but was still disposing of large quantities of heroin. Carol Brantley accompanied Daniel Burch to North Carolina in the summer of 1976 where Burch contacted Atkinson and other members of the Atkinson family. The [*9] state's evidence tends to show that Daniel Burch obtained heroin in North Carolina and then had it transported to James Williams' home in Akron where Burch prepared it for sale. In 1977, David Burch purchased a bar in Akron and agreed with Daniel Burch to purchase the bar's parking lot. Sam Wilkerson testified that this bar had earlier been used as an outlet for heroin. It became one again.
On January 19, 1978, searches were conducted at 811 Easter Avenue, an apartment rented by David and Daniel Burch and 986 Peckham Street, a house frequented by James Williams. Included in the items seized was a quantity of 85% pure heroin at 986 Peckham Street.
Several of the defendants' assignments of error present identical issues. Some of these assignments are dealt with jointly. An index is provided at the end of this opinion.
SECTION A - JOINT ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Joint Assignment of Error 1
"1. The trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to grant Daniel D. Burch's motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of an improper search warrant. (Case 8890).
"1. The court committed prejudicial error in failing to grant the defendant Rare Element's motion [*10] to suppress all evidence obtained from the searches executed pursuant to the warrant issued on January 18, 1978. (Case 8891).
"1. The trial court erred in failing to grant the defendant David Burch's motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the searches executed pursuant to the warrant issued on January 18, 1978. The error was prejudicial to the defendant. (Case 8892)."
Warrants to search 811 Easter Avenue, Rare Elements, Inc.'s place of business in the Rolling Acres Mall, apartment 11B6 at 55 Fir Hill and 986 Peckham Street were issued after sworn testimony was taken in chambers. The affidavit supporting the warrants consists of 35 pages containing 92 numbered paragraphs and several sub-paragraphs. This affidavit was signed in the judge's presence by affiants, George R. Simmons, Albert R. Wilkinson and Thomas M. Miksch. Simmons is a special agent of the United States Department of Justice assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration. Wilkinson and Miksch are Akron police officers assigned to the narcotics division. The affiants supervised and coordinated the investigation and all are very knowledgeable, trained and experienced in the drug abuse enforcement area. [*11]
The 92 paragraphs break down into several general categories. Paragraph one is a summary of a conversation which two special agents had with one of the alleged conspirators, Larry Hunter, while they were in an undercover capacity. Hunter reportedly made several trips to Germany and Viet Nam to purchase large amounts of heroin for Daniel Burch with money provided by Burch. The last trip was in 1974 and the agents saw his German passport issued for that purpose.
Thirty paragraphs or sub-paragraphs, numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40(A), 42, 44, 47 and 55 refer to reviews of telephone toll records between February of 1975 and August 29, 1977. These toll records show long distance calls from and to numbers listed to Daniel or David Burch and other members of the alleged criminal syndicate.
Six paragraphs, numbers 83 through 88, are devoted to establishing the reliability of six numbered "confidential informants." Thirteen other paragraphs, numbers 32, 33, 40, 53, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 76 concern statements or information from numbered "reliable informants," who apparently are the numbered "confidential [*12] informants." Two sub-paragraphs, 27(D) and 27(F), concern information from other, unnumbered, "reliable informants."
Twelve paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, numbers 8, 27(G), 34, 35, 36, 38, 59(A), 61, 89, 90, 91 and 92 concern personal observation or knowledge by the affiants or other police officers as to the movement and association of various members of the alleged criminal syndicate, particularly Daniel Burch, David Burch and James Williams.
Six paragraphs, numbers 17, 18, 28, 46, 63 and 70, concern information from unnumbered "cooperating individuals."
Eleven sub-paragraphs, numbers 20(A), 20(B), 20(C), 25(A), 25(B), 25(C), 25(D), 27(A), 27(B), 30(A) and 30(B), deal with information learned in conferences with law enforcement agencies in other cities. Thirteen paragraphs or sub-paragraphs concern information learned by reviewing the records of other law enforcement agencies, numbers 10(A), 10(B), 14, 15, 27(C), 27(E), 27(H), 30(C), 45, 51, 54, 57 and 80.
Forty- eight paragraphs or sub-paragraphs, numbers 39, 41, 43, 48, 49, 50, 52, 62, 64, 65, 71, 71(A), 71(B), 71(C), 71(D), 71(E), 71(F), 72, 72(A), 72(B), 72(C), 72(D), 72(E), 73, 74, 74(A), 74(B), 74(C), 74(D), 74(E), 75, [*13] 75(A), 75(B), 77, 78, 78(A), 78(B), 78(C), 78(D), 79, 79(A), 79(B), 80(A), 81, 81(A), 81(B), 81(C) and 82, concern information from reviews of reports by Akron police officers.
It is argued that many of the paragraphs or sub-paragraphs referring to telephone calls and movements of various defendants and their vehicles cannot support a finding of probable cause because none of the conduct is unlawful or suggestive of criminal activity. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964). The main thrust is at the information from "cooperating individuals" and "reliable informants." Defendants contend that neither the reliability of the individuals nor the underlying circumstances supporting their conclusions is demonstrated. State v. Gill, 49 Ohio St. 2d 177 (1977). Further, the information in paragraphs 1, 57 and 58 is asserted to be stale.
First, let us review sub-paragraphs 27(D) and 27(F). These simply refer to a reliable informant but relate nothing to meet the two-pronged test of reliability. These should not have been the basis for probable cause.
Secondly, paragraphs 17, 18, 28, 46, 63 and 70 refer to statements of "cooperating individuals." [*14] Most of these paragraphs do not give the basis for the reliability of the "cooperating individuals," nor the underlying circumstances which support their conclusions. However, paragraph 63 refers to personal observation. Paragraph 70 is supported by the reliable informants in paragraphs 67 and 68. Paragraphs 17, 18, 28 and 46 are actually conclusions drawn by the "cooperating individuals." While in and of themselves they are not reliable, as a group they tend to support each other because they are the same conclusions independently drawn by different persons at different times. Thus, they help form the basis for the affiants' personal knowledge in paragraph 89.
Paragraphs 83 through 88 set out the basis for the reliability of informants one through six. Each has been corroborated by either independent investigation, controlled buys, prior information which led to convictions, prior accurate information and demonstrated knowledge of traffic in heroin and cocaine. This information then forms the basis for the reliability of paragraphs 32, 33, 40, 41, 53, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 76. United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971); Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960);[*15] Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959); United States v. Sultan, 463 F. 2d 1066 (2d Cir., 1972); State v. Karr, 44 Ohio St. 2d 163 (1975); State v. Haynes, 25 Ohio St. 2d 264 (1971)
