IN - Drug Bust $2M Worth Narcotics Hendricks Co; Osegueda, Lopez Arrested 4-26-21

[FrostedGlass]

Traffic Stop Leads to 2 Million Dollars Worth of Narcotics

Hendricks County - This afternoon at approximately 1:30 p.m., an Indiana State Police Trooper stopped a Chrysler van on Interstate 70 near the fifty-nine-mile marker for unsafe lane movement. The driver was identified as Ester Osegueda, age 32 of Porteville, California. The passenger in the vehicle was identified as Adam Lopez, age 27, of Tulare, California. During the conversation with the two occupants, the trooper observed criminal indicators and a subsequent investigation led to a search of the vehicle. During that search, the trooper discovered 134 pounds of crystal methamphetamine and 90 pounds of fentanyl concealed in the cargo area. The drugs originated from Memphis, Tennessee, and were destined for Indianapolis, Indiana. The estimated value of the narcotics is two million dollars.

Both subjects were taken into custody and transported to the Hendricks County Jail where they are currently being detained.

Arrested and Charges:

Ester Osegueda, 32, Porteville, California
Dealing Narcotics, Level 2, Felony

Adam Lopez, 27, Tulare, California
Dealing Narcotics, Level 2 Felony

All criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until, and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

AMES

Traffic Stop Leads to 2 Million Dollars Worth of Narcotics

 

[FrostedGlass]

She has the same drug charges as he has. Her bond was $25,000. Someone bonded both of them out on 5/03, the court gave them travel passes to California, gave his stuff back, they gave their money to the attorneys and Hendricks Co (?) and away they went.

I wonder who coughed up that $60,000 and did they make it out there alive.
*************************
(Here's Ester Osegueda's case: 32D05-2104-F2-000015)

Adam Bonifacio Lopez
32D05-2104-F2-000014
Court Hendricks Superior Court 5
Type F2 - Felony 2
Filed 04/27/2021
Status 04/27/2021 , Pending (active)

Charges
35-48-4-1(a)(2)/F2: Dealing in a Narcotic Drug Manufacture/Deliver/Finance-10 or more grams
35-48-4-1.1(a)(2)/F2: Dealing in Methamphetamine/Amount of 10 or more grams
35-48-4-6(a)/F3: Possession of a Narcotic Drug
35-48-4-6.1(a)/F3: Possession of Methamphetamine Possession of 28 or more grams of methamphetamine.

Bonds = Hendricks Cash Bond - $35,000.00

04/27/2021 = Order Issued
VIDEO COURT. State appears by Deputy Prosecutor Brian Woodard. Defendant advises he will hire counsel. Omnibus date and Pretrial is set for 6-16-21 at 10:00 a.m. Bond is set at $35,000.00 cash. Order issued. Order for Discovery issued. Order on Pretrial Supervision issued.

05/03/2021 = Cash Bond Entered in Clerk's Office

05/06/2021 = Appearance Filed APPEARANCE OF SCOTT KNIERIM
For Party:Lopez, Adam Bonifacio

05/06/2021 = Motion to Release Bond
Filed By:Lopez, Adam Bonifacio

05/06/2021 = Motion to Travel Outside of State Filed
MOTION TO TRAVEL OUT OF STATE AND FOR TELEPHONE REPORTING
Filed By:Lopez, Adam Bonifacio

05/07/2021 = The Court corrects its entry on the Order for Bond Release to read that the Clerk shall release $10,000.00 only of the Cash Bond to Scott Kneirim for Attorney fees, minus the Clerk's fee.

05/07/2021 = Order for Out of State Travel and Telephonic Reporting granted. Defendant may travel to the State of California while this case is pending. Defendant is ordered to have monthly telephonic contact with his pretrial release officer pursuant to Probation's schedule and direction.

05/10/2021 = Clerk Releases Bond Per Order

05/12/2021 = MOTION FOR RELEASE OF PROPERTY
Filed By:Lopez, Adam Bonifacio

05/12/2021 = Order to Return Personal Property issued.

05/19/2021 = First Class Mail Returned
ORDER, ORDER ON PRETRIAL SUPERVISION, ORDER FOR DISCOVERY FELONY- SENT OUT TO ADAM LOPEZ- RETURNED ON 5/18/221- UNABLE TO FORWARD.

06/16/2021 = Pretrial Conference
Session:06/16/2021 10:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

 

[FrostedGlass]

It looks like there was no pretrial conference held. Her attorney asked for a continuance and the court filed for one for him. I wonder if either one of them have been in touch with their attorney.

Hers:
06/15/2021 = Motion for Continuance Filed
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Filed By: Osegueda, Ester

His:
06/15/2021 = Hearing Scheduling Activity
Pretrial Conference originally scheduled on 06/16/2021 at 10:00 AM was rescheduled to 08/05/2021 at 10:00 AM. Reason: Court's Own Motion.

The same for both of them:
08/05/2021 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 06/16/2021 10:00 AM, Rescheduled
Session: 08/05/2021 10:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

 

[FrostedGlass]

I get annoyed every time I check on this case; there's no indication in the records that either of these people have been in any telephonic meetings (a term of their release):

Adam Lopez
08/05/2021 = Hearing Journal Entry
Pretrial Conference: State appears by Deputy Prosecutors J. Akcermann, K. Krtizer and A. Robertson. Defendant does not appear. Attorney Scott Knierim appears in person. Defense requests a continuance. Court grants request and resets case for 10-21-21 at 10:00 AM.
Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie
10/21/2021 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 10/21/2021 10:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

Ester Osegueda
08/04/2021 = Order Issued
Order on Motion to Continue issued. Pretrial Conference is reset to 9-16-21 at 8:30 AM.

09/16/2021 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 06/16/2021 10:00 AM, Rescheduled
Session: 08/05/2021 8:30 AM, Rescheduled
Session: 09/16/2021 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

Drugs they brought into the Indy area:

 

[FrostedGlass]

The pre-trial conference yesterday for her was held and was continued again. I'm still wondering if her attorney has had any contact with her. Here's her next court date (His remains the same, 10/21):
11/04/2021 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 11/04/2021 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

The more I follow IN court cases, the less I understand the system. There was a big drug bust, similar to this one, two days ago in Hancock Co. Hendricks is the county on the west side of Indianapolis and Hancock is on the east. Hendricks let their suspects out with cash bonds of $35,000 and $25,000, returned his property and let them both go back to California.

Hancock, OTOH, seemingly means business.
39-year-old Felix Becerra-Aguilera, of California was arrested and taken to the Hancock County Jail, where he was being held Tuesday on a $1,000,000 bond.
A search of the car turned up 15.8 pounds of what are believed to be Fentanyl-laced pills and 4.4 pounds of pure Fentanyl hidden under the rear passenger seat.
His case # 30C01-2109-F2-001190
California Man Busted in Hancock County With Fentanyl, Pills - 93.1FM WIBC

 

[FrostedGlass]

This is the update for him:

12/02/2021 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 10/21/2021 10:00 AM, Rescheduled
Session: 12/02/2021 10:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie
Result: Continued

12/03/2021 = Hearing Journal Entry
12/02/21: Pretrial Conference: State appears by Deputy Prosecutor James Ackermann. Defendant fails to appear. Counsel for Defendant, Scott Knierim, appears. Pretrial Conference is reset for 01/20/2022 at 10:00 a.m.
Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

Hearing Date: 12/02/2021
12/03/2021 Hearing Scheduling Activity
Pretrial Conference scheduled for 01/20/2022 at 10:00 AM.

01/20/2022 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 01/20/2022 10:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

*************************
She didn't appear for her court date, either.

11/05/2021 = Hearing Journal Entry
11/04/21: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: State appears by Deputy Prosecutors James Ackermann, Christine Archer, and Tyler Kinsely. Defendant does not appear. Counsel for Defendant, Brian Johnson, appears. Pretrial Conference is reset for 01/20/2022 at 8:30 a.m.
Judicial Officer:
LeMay-Luken, Stephenie
Hearing Date: 11/04/2021

11/05/2021 = Hearing Scheduling Activity
Pretrial Conference scheduled for 01/20/2022 at 8:30 AM.

01/20/2022 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 01/20/2022 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

 

[FrostedGlass]

In my earlier post, I held Hancock Co up as an example of how to proceed with the conviction of an F2 drug dealer. The case was dismissed las week. Where's a head-banging icon?

In this case, Ester Osegueda had a pre-trial conference today but I don't know how that went yet.

Adam Lopez case was updated; no idea what the motion to suppress is about.

01/19/2022 = Motion to Suppress Filed
Motion to Suppress
Filed By: Lopez, Adam Bonifacio

01/19/2022 = Hearing Scheduling Activity
Pretrial Conference scheduled for 01/20/2022 at 10:00 AM was cancelled. Reason: Other.

01/19/2022 = Hearing Scheduling Activity
Hearing on Motion to Suppress scheduled for 03/17/2022 at 11:00 AM.

01/20/2022 = CANCELED Pretrial Conference
Reason: Other
Session: 01/20/2022 10:00 AM, Cancelled
Comment: Knierim by phone 317-718-7290

01/20/2022 = Order Issued
Order on Motion to Suppress issued. Suppression Hearing is set for 3-17-22 at 11:00 a.m. with one hour allotted. Pretrial Conference is vacated.

Order Signed: 01/19/2022
03/17/2022 Hearing on Motion to Suppress
Session: 03/17/2022 11:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

 

[FrostedGlass]

Update for her; his is unchanged.

02/24/2022 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 02/24/2022 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie
Result: Continued

02/24/2022 = Motion to Suppress Filed
Motion to Suppress
Filed By: Osegueda, Ester

02/24/2022 = Hearing Journal Entry
Pretrial Conference: State appears by Deputy Prosecutors James Ackermann and Tyler Kinsley. Defendant fails to appear. Counsel for Defendant, Brian Johnson, appears. Motion to Suppress has been filed by counsel for Defendant. Hearing on Motion to Suppress to be set by Bailiff.
Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

 

[FrostedGlass]

Just a reminder of what these 2 individuals did and that what is destined for Indy often doesn't stay within its bounds.

"During that search, the trooper discovered 134 pounds of crystal methamphetamine and 90 pounds of fentanyl concealed in the cargo area. The drugs originated from Memphis, Tennessee, and were destined for Indianapolis, Indiana. The estimated value of the narcotics is two million dollars."

Update for him;
03/25/2022 = Memorandum/Brief Filed
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Filed By: Lopez, Adam Bonifacio

03/28/2022 = Response Filed
State's Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress
Filed By: State of Indiana

For her:
02/25/2022 = Hearing Scheduling Activity
Hearing on Motion to Suppress scheduled for 04/14/2022 at 11:00 AM.

02/25/2022 = Order Issued
Order on Motion to Suppress issued. Suppression Hearing is set for 4-14-22 at 11:00 a.m. with 2 hours allotted.

04/14/2022 = Hearing on Motion to Suppress
Session: 04/14/2022 11:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

 

[FrostedGlass]

Nothing new for her; new update for him:

03/28/2022 = Response Filed
State's Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress
Filed By: State of Indiana

03/29/2022 = Order Issued
Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence issued. Pretrial Conference is set for 4-21-22 at 10:00 a.m.

04/21/2022 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 04/21/2022 10:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

 

[FrostedGlass]

Her hearing:

04/14/2022 = Hearing on Motion to Suppress
Session: 04/14/2022 11:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie
Result: Commenced and concluded

04/14/2022 = Hearing Journal Entry
SUPPRESSION HEARING: The State of Indiana appears by its Deputy Prosecutor, Brian Woodard. The Defendant appears by counsel, Brian Johnson. Sworn testimony heard and evidence seen. Arguments. Court takes this matter under advisement.
Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

 

[FrostedGlass]

His update

04/21/2022 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 04/21/2022 10:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie
Result: Continued

04-21-22: Pretrial Conference: State appears by Deputy Prosecutors Brian Woodard, James Ackermann and Tyler Kinsley. Defendant fails to appear. Counsel for Defendant, Scott Knierim, appears. Continuance requested. Pretrial Conference is reset for 06-16-22 at 10:00 a.m.

06/16/2022 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 06/16/2022 10:00 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

 

[FrostedGlass]

Her update:

05/06/2022 = Order Issued
Come now the Court, having taken this matter under advisement following the Hearing on 04-14-22, and finds that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is denied. Pretrial Conference is set for 06-02-22 at 8:30 a.m. Order issued.
Order Signed: 05/05/2022

06/02/2022 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 06/02/2022 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie

 

[FrostedGlass]

Update for her; something new to me. I wonder if her atty thinks there's a problem with the vehicle search.
There's no updates for him.

05/23/2022 = Motion Filed
Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal
Filed By: Osegueda, Ester

05/23/2022 = Order Issued
Order Certify Denial Of Motion To suppress for Interlocutory Appeal issued.

06/02/2022 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 06/02/2022 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: LeMay-Luken, Stephenie
**********

Interlocutory Appeals Law and Legal Definition​

An interlocutory appeal is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. It asks an appellate court to review an aspect of the case before the trial has concluded. In the U.S., such an appeal can be made if extraordinary circumstances exist that would prevent the case from being properly decided if the appeal wasn't heard. Interlocutory appeals are generally restricted by state and federal appellate courts because courts do not want fractional litigation. These appeals are entertained to prevent irreparable harm from occurring to a person or property during the pendency of a lawsuit or proceeding.

Interlocutory Appeals Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

An interlocutory appeal is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. It asks an appellate court to review an aspect of the case before the trial has

definitions.uslegal.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

Her PTC set for yesterday was rescheduled. The state filed a motion to destroy the evidence. Here is a summary for easier reading of the important actions. The records do not show what the defense wants to suppress.
EO is the defendant.

04/27/2021 = Case Opened as a New Filing
05/03/2021 = Hendricks Cash Bond - $25,000.00
05/05/2021 = Granted motion to assign bond to counsel, Brian Johnson.
05/05/2021 = Granted Motion for Out of State Travel
02/24/2022 = Motion to Suppress Filed By EO
05/06/2022 = Motion to Suppress is denied.
05/23/2022 = Motion Filed to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal, By EO
05/23/2022 = Order issued. Certify Denial Of Motion To suppress for Interlocutory Appeal
05/31/2022 = Motion for Continuance By EO (granted)
06/02/2022 = Order on State's Motion to Destroy Evidence issued.
07/07/2022 = Pretrial Conference (New Date)

 

[FrostedGlass]

I have no connection to this company; I just thought the explanation was easy to understand. It's been almost a year since the arrest; I wonder why it took the atty so long to bring this issue forward.
***************

What is an Interlocutory Appeal? - Ciyou & Dixon, P.C.

Many people in Indiana have a general idea of what it means to appeal a decision. The popularity of legal TV shows, true crime shows streamed to our laptops

www.ciyoudixonlaw.com

The party wanting to proceed with an interlocutory appeal usually ... needs to get permission from the trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals to do this. Typically, the trial court proceeding is stayed (a fancy word for “paused”) while the appeal proceeds. A scenario for an interlocutory appeal may be an issue that is decided early on in the trial court that will likely affect the rest of the proceedings...

How an interlocutory appeal is started. Usually, a party starts an interlocutory appeal process by filing what is called a motion for certification of an interlocutory order. This is filed with the trial court, and if it’s granted, the Indiana Court of Appeals has to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.

If a trial court certifies the order, then the appellant has to file a motion with the Indiana Court of Appeals asking it to accept jurisdiction. An appellant has thirty (30) days after the certification order to file this motion.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Her motion for an interlocutory appeal has been filed. It details the traffic stop and what followed.
Case # 22A-CR-01457

4. The nature of the evidence presented at the hearing is as follows:

On April 26, 2021, at approximately 1:27 p.m. Indiana State Police Trooper Yan
Dravigne observed a blue Chrysler Voyager van traveling eastbound on Interstate 70 near
the 55 mile marker in Hendricks County, Indiana. According to Dravigne, the van made
an “erratic lane chance for no apparent reason” and failed to properly signal the requisite
distance before changing lanes.

Dravigne caught up to the van, activated his lights, and the van pulled over onto
the right shoulder of the highway near the 59 mile marker. Dravigne approached the
passenger side of the vehicle and began a conversation with Osegueda, who was driving
the van, and the passenger, Adam Lopez. Osegueda and Lopez told Dravigne they were
California, and had flown to and rented the car in Memphis and were driving to visit
Lopez’s brother. After obtaining the van’s registration, Dravigne told Osegueda that he
was going to write her a warning and to “come back here with me.”

While Osegueda was standing at the rear of the van Dravigne began questioning
the passenger about information unrelated to the stop, specifically where they were going.
Dravigne then went back to his car and had Osegueda stand outside his car on the
passenger side. At this point approximately 2:30 had elapsed from the time the van was
stopped. Dravigne then asked Osegueda about where they were coming from, how long
they were staying, and how they were getting home. He asked her what they did for a
living, and where in California they worked, and what Lopez’s brother’s name was.
Another two minutes elapsed. Dravigne then went back to the van and questioned Lopez
further about what the pair did for a living, looking in the van and seeing trash bags.
Returning again to his car Dravigne asked Osegueda about the bags to which she advised
they were being used as luggage.

Dravigne told Osegueda to return to the van while he finished his paperwork.
Instead Dravigne called for a drug detection dog and “ran” the van’s registration.
Dravigne then called the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) trying to conduct additional
investigatory checks on Lopez and Osegueda completely unrelated to the reason for the
stop. While Dravigne was awaiting information from EPIC, Trooper Hall arrived with his
drug detection dog. Dravigne instructed Hall to have Osegueda and Lopez get out of the
van and to use his dog to conduct a “free air sniff.” At this point in time approximately 6
minutes had elapsed from the time Dravigne told Osegueda to return to the van; virtually
none of this time was related to the purposes of the stop.

At this point in time Dravigne had Osegueda get into his police car while Hall
removed Lopez from the van and patted him down, having him sit down approximately
ten feet away from the van in clear view of Osegueda. After sitting in Dravigne’s car for
another couple of minutes while he was apparently conversing with EPIC, Dravigne then
asked Osegueda if there was anything illegal in the car, any drugs. At this point in time
Osegueda had not been advised of what are commonly referred to as her Miranda rights.

In response to Dravigne’s question, Osegueda stated that while they were leaving
a hotel in Memphis unknown individuals placed several bags in the van and threatened to
kill her and Lopez if they did not deliver the bags to Memphis. Although in his testimony
at the suppression hearing as well as in his probable cause affidavit Dravigne described
these statements by Osegueda as “voluntary,” it is clear from the audio from the in-car
camera that while the question was barely audible, Osegueda’s statements were in
response to a question from Dravigne about the contents of the van and his statements to
the contrary are a lie.

At this point Osegueda was advised of her Miranda rights, and subsequently
agreed to a search of the van which revealed approximately 134 pounds of
methamphetamine and 90 pounds of Fentanyl.

 

[FrostedGlass]

The argument:

6. The Court of Appeals should accept this interlocutory appeal because the order denying Osegueda’s Motion to Suppress involves a substantial question of law, the early determination of which will promote a more orderly disposition of the case. More specifically:
a. Whether the parties travel plans provided reasonable suspicion to unreasonably delay the traffic stop for reasons unrelated to purposed of the stop.

There is no reason to delay addressing the issue until after trial, as the relevant facts are largely not in dispute, and the propriety of such “fishing expeditions” for evidence conducted on minority drivers is an issue of significant importance beyond just Osegueda’s case, and should be addressed on the appellate level as expeditiously as possible.

WHEREFORE, Osegueda prays for this Court to accept interlocutory jurisdiction over his case and for all additional appropriate relief.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm not familiar with the rights of fishing expeditions. If they gave LE false info, would he then have the legal right to take the time to explore that? If he called for the dog while he was doing that, is that considered a separate action?

I really, really hate to see these 2 drug dealers get off because a cop messed up.

I wonder what prompted him to contact the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)

El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)

www.dea.gov

I found this about vehicle searches in Indiana:

Vehicle Searches and Drug Dog Sniffs (K-9 Searches)​

Sometimes, when a car is stopped, an officer will call for a drug dog if they suspect the person may have marijuana or other drugs in the vehicle. It is legal for the police to walk a drug sniffing dog around a vehicle, but there are some exceptions.

The biggest rule regarding K-9 searches is that the officer cannot prolong a traffic stop just to get the K-9 to the scene. A K-9 search is not considered a search under the 4th Amendment, but a prolonged stop to conduct the search is an illegal seizure of the person. Therefore, the Supreme Court has held that a police officer cannot extend a traffic stop past the point it takes to complete the traffic stop in order to conduct a K-9 sniff. Thus, if it only takes an officer 5 minutes to stop a driver for a broken tail light and write a ticket, making the person wait even an additional minute or two would be illegal.

Vehicle Searches in Indiana

Vehicle Searches - What's Legal? Many clients come to Chambers Law Office with questions about vehicle searches and drug charges. Maybe they were stopped

www.defendindy.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

We have a response to her appeal. Now, please set a trial date and haul them back to Indiana.
22A-CR-01457

07/25/2022 = Order Denying Motion for Interlocutory Appeal
Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds and orders as follows: 1. Appellant's Motion to Accept Interlocutory Appeal is denied. 2. The Clerk of this Court is directed to send this order to the parties, the trial court, and the Hendricks Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk. 3. The Hendricks Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk is directed to file a copy of this order under Cause Number 32D05-2104-F2-15, and, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 77(D), the Clerk shall place the contents of this order in the Record of Judgments and Orders. Crone, J., Shepard, Baker, Sr. JJ., concur.
Judicial Officer:Bradford, Cale J.
Party:Osegueda, Ester
Serve:Johnson, Brian J
Serve:Rokita, Theodore Edward
Serve:Lemay-Luken, Stephenie D.
Serve:Trial Clerk 32 - Hendricks
File Stamp: 07/25/2022