Attorney wants evidence suppressed in food-stamp fraud case

Cape Girardeau attorney John Schneider submitted two motions Friday, on behalf of client Patrick Buck, that would suppress a substantial amount of evidence if they are granted by federal Judge Shirley Manseh.

Patrick Buck was indicted Dec. 17 on five counts of illegally using, transferring, acquiring and possessing $100 or more of U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, better known as food stamps.

The indictment states between January 2010 and March 2014, B&H Convenience Store, owned and operated by Buck, illegally redeemed about $800,000 in SNAP benefits.

Buck faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

Schneider’s first motion for suppression of evidence states Buck never was contacted by U.S. Inspector General investigations officer Susan Hytinen, who obtained access to Bank of America and First State Community Bank accounts held by Buck, Tamara Buck and Vanessa Rutherford. Tamara Buck is Patrick Buck’s wife. Rutherford was listed as an employee at B&H Convenience Store.

The motion states information from several bank accounts were included in discovery information supplied by the prosecution.

“Nowhere in the discovery responses or documents provided to the defendant is there any consent by the defendant, or any account holder, or is there any indication that any search warrant or subpoena was ever issued and served on any bank or financial institution,” Schneider wrote.

The motion refers to The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 that states “users” must have a reason or permission to obtain a consumer report. Reasons include an order by a court or grand-jury subpoena.

On the U.S. Department of Agriculture SNAP fraud page, an electronic audit trail is listed as one of the means to identify trafficking and other suspicious activity.

The indictment against Buck stated SNAP transactions and reimbursements to B&H Convenience Store passed through Bank of America and First State Community Bank that held financial accounts controlled by Buck. Two accounts Schneider lists in the motion were named as recipients of SNAP reimbursements in the indictment.

Double Up evidence

Schneider’s other motion was to suppress evidence obtained at 432 Morgan Oak St., also known as the Double Up, a small grocer, because that address was not named as the target of the search warrant.

Schneider cited Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that the property searched must be identified.

He also cited the Groh v. Ramirez court ruling in 2004, in which an ATF special agent did not identify the items sought in a search warrant.

“Hytinen specifically identifies the address and location of the property subject to the intended Search Warrant, which was 1021 Bloomfield Road, Cape Girardeau, commonly referred to as B&H Convenience Store,” Schneider wrote.

“In the application for a Search Warrant, there is a brief mention of activities of the Defendant at 432 Morgan Oak Street, Cape Girardeau. The application for search warrant never requests or mentions a request to search the premises located at 432 Morgan Oak St.”

The application for a search warrant states from March 2013 to January 2014, a cooperating witness was directed to go to the Double Up to receive cash payment from Buck in exchange of SNAP benefits. It stated the benefits were transacted and deducted from the electronic-benefit transfer card at B&H Convenience Store, but the informant went to the Double Up to obtain payment or approval of the transaction from Buck.

The application for a search warrant provides background on the Double Up, including it had applied to be an authorized redeemer of SNAP benefits in January 2013 but failed when Buck failed to provide additional documentation and information.

Schneider provided a three-page list of items seized from the Double Up, including business documents, EBT receipts, the cellphone of Patrick Buck, an iPad, a digital video recorder and EBT cards.

“The defendant is requesting ... all evidence obtained at said location and all testimony taken at said location be suppressed and otherwise not allowed to be used at any trial or hearing against the defendant,” Schneider wrote.

Informant ID

Schneider also submitted a third motion requesting identification of all government informants in the case, citing the Roviaro v. United States court ruling from 1957.

The U.S. Supreme Court in that case ruled “disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair trial, the Government’s privilege to withhold disclosure of the informer’s identity must give way.”

An informant is mentioned throughout the search-warrant application. The application mentioned the cooperating witness was paid for information and services rendered.

An evidentiary hearing in the case is scheduled for 10 a.m. March 31 in Cape Girardeau.

Schneider and U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Missouri could not be reached for comment.

bkleine@semissourian.com

(573) 388-3644

Pertinent address:

1021 Bloomfield Road, Cape Girardeau, Mo

432 Morgan Oak St., Cape Girardeau, Mo.