USA v. Miske, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. MISKE, JR.,
Defendant.
Case No. 19-cr-00099-DKW-1
ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT
MICHAEL J. MISKE, JR.’S
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
EVIDENCE AND FRUITS DERIVED
FROM SEARCH AND SEIZURE
WARRANTS 15-01345, 15-01346,
AND 15-01347, AND (2) DENYING
IN PART AND REFERRING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL
Defendant Michael J. Miske, Jr. moves to suppress (“motion”) all evidence
obtained from three search and seizure warrants (“the Warrants”) on the ground that
the essentially identical affidavits accompanying the Warrants (“the Affidavits”)
contained recklessly and materially false statements and/or omissions, which, when
corrected, negate probable cause for the searches authorized by the Warrants. 	In
doing so, Miske also requested an evidentiary hearing under Franks v. Delaware,
438 U.S. 154 (1978). 	The government opposed the motion and the Franks hearing
on various grounds, arguing, inter alia, that, even if the challenged portions of the
Affidavits are removed or supplemented, probable cause still exists for the
authorized searches.
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 1 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

2
Reserving judgment on whether Miske had shown an entitlement to a Franks
hearing, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the instant motion. 	Having
observed the testimony from said hearing, the Affidavits, the parties’ written and
oral arguments, the supporting documentation, and pertinent case law, the Court
finds that Miske has failed to show, even if the challenged portions of the Affidavits
are supplemented or otherwise changed, that probable cause did not still exist.
Notably, while Miske focuses on specific aspects of the Affidavits, he fails to
meaningfully challenge other parts. 	In particular, Miske ignores the portions of the
Affidavits concerning his alleged transmission of gambling information and
interference with commerce by extortion. 	At the very least, these allegations
contained sufficient factual material for a Magistrate Judge to find probable cause.
Therefore, as more fully explained below, the motion to suppress, Dkt. No. 963, is
DENIED.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On November 12, 2015, a U.S. Magistrate Judge authorized the Warrants.
Dkt. No. 963-4 at 1; Dkt. No. 963-5 at 1; Dkt. No. 963-6 at 1.1 	The Warrants
required the providers of four separate cellular telephone accounts to disclose, from
September 1, 2014 to the then-present day, inter alia, all voice mail, text, and media
1 In citing to exhibits attached to the briefing on the instant motion, the Court cites to the page
numbers assigned in the top-right corner of each document, i.e. “Page 1 of 54.” 	In addition, for
the sake of simplicity given the essentially identical nature of the Affidavits, in summarizing the
same going forward, the Court cites solely to the first-filed Affidavit−in Case No. 15-MJ-01345.
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 2 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

3
messages on the respective telephones, and the cell towers and/or locations used by
the phones. 	Dkt. No. 963-4 at 4-5.
The Affidavits, authored by Special Agent Timothy Pent (SA Pent) of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), stated that law enforcement believed Miske
and others were engaged in an enterprise that had committed violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, consisting of dealing
in a controlled substance, extortion, and gambling. 	Id. at ¶ 4. 	The Affidavits
provided the following information in support of the Warrants.
In November 2013, Confidential Informant One (CI#1) reported that Miske
used a Fishing Vessel (FV) called Rachel and another called Kraken to transport
methamphetamine into Hawai‘i. 	Id. at ¶ 19. 	The registered owner of FV Rachel
was Alfredo Cabael, who was a “good friend” of Miske and did his “dirty work.”
In August 2013, CI#1 reported that FV Rachel transported methamphetamine from
California to Hawai‘i by attaching the drugs to a radio frequency buoy and dropping
the same into the ocean about 40 miles off the Hawai‘i coast. 	Later, other fishing
vessels used the radio frequency transmissions to locate the drugs and transport it
into Hawai‘i. 	In December 2013, CI#1 reported that the FV Kraken had been
boarded by law enforcement and “fish compound” had been seized. 	Id.
In April 2014, Confidential Informant Two (CI#2) reported that FV Rachel
had “recently” traveled to California for the sole purpose of picking up a dog. 	Id. at
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 3 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

4
¶ 20. 	In March 2015, Confidential Informant Three (CI#3) reported that Miske
asked CI#3 to assist him in registering FV Rachel “under a name disassociated with
Miske[]” because “there was too much attention from the Coast Guard” on the boat.
Id. at ¶ 21. 	In September 2015, SA Pent obtained vessel monitoring data from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which reflected that FV Rachel
left Hawai‘i on or about July 15, 2013, traveled to California, and returned to
Hawai‘i on August 26, 2013. 	Id. at ¶ 23.
According to Confidential Witness One (CW1), Miske’s primary business
was Kama’aina Termite and Pest Control (KTPC). 	Id. at ¶ 24. 	Miske also owned
M Nightclub, which was in an “expensive” location, and “likely” spent about $1
million on FV Rachel. 	Based upon CW1’s business experience as a bar-owner and
commercial fisherman, Miske “must have” had an “illegitimate” means of income to
support his “expensive” lifestyle, which included owning various properties and
luxury vehicles. 	Id. 	In March 2015, Confidential Informant Five (CI#5) reported
that, based upon CI#5’s experience running a large pest-control business, it was
“unlikely” that a fumigation business like KTPC could generate more than 10
percent profit annually. 	Id. at ¶¶ 10, 25. 	CI#5 estimated KTPC’s annual gross
sales to be approximately $2.5 million, which would mean a maximum profit of
$250,000. 	Id. at ¶ 25. 	CI#5 reported that Miske’s “apparent” profit, which CI#5
stated allowed Miske to pay his employees “significantly higher wages” and
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 4 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

5
purchase expensive company vehicles, was “impossible.” 	CI#5 believed,
therefore, that Miske “must have” a source of income other than KTPC. 	CI#5 also
reported that, due to the poison used for fumigations, even though Miske was
required to comply with regulations related to the same, Miske “appeared” to violate
“numerous” regulations, and CI#5 was unsure how Miske was able to pass
government inspections. 	Id.
CI#5 further reported “a time” when Miske discovered that a national pest
control company salesman (T1) showed clients negative reviews of KTPC. 	Id. at
¶ 26. 	Miske contacted T1, pretending to be interested in purchasing T1’s services,
and, after T1 arrived at a residence specified by Miske, “two of Miske’s guys pulled
T1 into the residence and brutally beat him.” 	Id. 	In May 2015, Confidential
Witness Two (CW2) reported that he “recently” hired KTPC to fumigate his van.
Id. at ¶ 27. 	After the fumigation, KTPC was unclear about the pesticides used,
prompting CW2 to ask for clarification on the same and to notify KTPC that he was
considering speaking to the Environmental Protection Agency about KTPC’s
business practices. 	Miske contacted CW2 by phone and, inter alia, told CW2 that
he would “beat the shit” out of CW2. 	Miske called CW2 a second time and asked
him if he wanted to “disappear….” 	Id.
In September 2015, Confidential Informant Six (CI#6) reported that Miske
used a group of guys, including Russell Mascoto, John Stancil, Cabael, Mike
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 5 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

6
Buntenbah, and Wayne Miller, to provide “muscle.” 	Id. at ¶ 29. 	In October 2015,
CI#6 reported that Miske previously assaulted T1. 	Id. at ¶ 30. 	Specifically, after
learning about T1 providing potential clients with bad reviews of KTPC, Miske and
“some of his boys” located T1 and brutally beat him. 	CI#6 also recalled talking
with one of Miske’s employees (E1) about Miske’s fishing operation, and E1 said
that, when Miske heard a competitor was offering lower fish prices, Miske had his
guys assault the competitor, forcing the competitor to raise his prices. 	Id.
In October 2015, Confidential Witness 4 (CW4) reported that he visited M
Nightclub in August 2012. 	Id. at ¶ 31. 	Following food and drinks, CW4 received
a bill that included an “extra charge.” 	CW4 showed the “error” to the waitress and
asked for a corrected bill. 	When Miske heard about this, he sent seven or eight
security personnel to CW4’s table. 	The security personnel “pulled” CW4 from the
table and escorted him to the back of the club while “repeatedly” striking CW4 in his
side. 	CW4 was placed in a chair across from Miske, and Miske demanded CW4
pay the bill “or else.” 	CW4 asked if “or else” meant that he would be killed, to
which Miske did not respond. 	CW4 then took the bill and wrote “fuck security.”
Miske proceeded to nod at his security personnel, who began assaulting CW4 again.
CW4 escaped by running outside the building, but was punched in the face by what
appeared to be an employee of M Nightclub. 	Bystanders helped CW4 escape, but
his tooth was knocked out by the punch. 	CW4 also incurred $5,000 in medical
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 6 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

7
costs. 	CW4 hired an attorney to recoup his medical costs, but the attorney later
explained that he would not proceed with a civil case against Miske. 	Id.
In November 2014, CI#3 reported that Miske owed $40,000 in gambling
losses to a Honolulu bookie, but Miske refused to pay. 	Id. at ¶ 32. 	In June 2015,
CI#2 reported that Nathan Thorell was employed by Miske. 	Id. at ¶ 33.2 	In
October 2015, CI#2 reported that Thorell asked if CI#2 could take an $8,000 bet on
a football game the following day. 	Thorell advised the bet was on behalf of the
“Kama’aina guy”, which CI#2 understood to mean Miske. 	Id. 	In October 2015,
CI#6 reported that Miske and many of his associates were involved in gambling.
Id. at ¶ 34. 	Miske would hold a meeting each morning at KTPC, at which Miske
and his employees would discuss sports bets. 	Miske complained about losing a
$10,000 bet on a football game. 	Id. 	Elton Santos, a KTPC salesman, once used
$10,000 he collected for KTPC fumigation projects to place sports bets. 	Id. at
¶¶ 30, 34. 	Santos lost the bets, owing Miske $10,000, which Richard MacGuyer, a
KTPC employee, provided to Miske in order to cover Santos’ loss. 	Id. at ¶¶ 29, 34.
MacGuyer appeared to be the “house” through which Miske, Santos, and Miske’s
other employees placed wagers. 	Id. at ¶ 34. 	Cash pay-outs and collections were
often conducted during KTPC meetings. 	Id.
2 The Affidavits also spell Thorell as Thorrell. 	Dkt. No. 963-4 at ¶ 33. 	The Court uses the more
frequently used spelling: Thorell. 	See id.
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 7 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

8
In September 2015, CI#6 reported that Miske always carried multiple phones
and frequently changed numbers. 	Id. at ¶ 35. 	Miske asked CI#6 to activate new
phone numbers for him, and paid employees to purchase phones under their own
names and then provide the phones to Miske. 	Id. 	Based upon reporting from
confidential informants and review of telephone records, it appeared that Miske
“routinely” switched-out his use of cellular telephones. 	Id. at ¶ 36. 	Miske never
subscribed to these phones himself; instead, the phones were subscribed to by other
individuals, fictitious names, or KTPC. 	Toll record analysis revealed that after
acquiring a phone, Miske initially generated a high volume of telephonic activity,
which, after several months, would begin to decrease, with Miske obtaining a new
phone number. 	Based upon investigation, it was determined that Miske used at
least five phones between September 2014 and October 2015. 	Id. 	Many of
Miske’s most frequent telephonic contacts were with individuals identified by
confidential informants as people who did Miske’s “dirty work”, including Mascoto,
Miller, Buntenbah, and Cabael. 	Id. at ¶ 37. 	Miske also had frequent contact with
phone numbers subscribed to by Thorell and a business owned by Ryan Teramoto.
With respect to Teramoto, in an interview with law enforcement in May 2000, he
stated that he had been involved in drug trafficking with Miske. 	Id.
On September 15, 2023, Miske filed the instant motion, seeking to suppress
evidence and fruits derived from the Warrants. 	Dkt. No. 963. 	The government
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 8 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

9
filed a response in opposition to the motion, Dkt. No. 978, and Miske filed a reply,
Dkt. No. 987. 	On October 13 and 16, 2023, the Court held, inter alia, an
evidentiary hearing on the instant motion, at which SA Pent, among others, testified.
Dkt. Nos. 996, 998. 	This Order now follows.
LEGAL STANDARD
Miske challenges the Warrants under the Fourth Amendment and Franks.
The Fourth Amendment, in relevant part, provides that search warrants may be
issued “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. 	The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to require
three things for the validity of a search warrant:
First, warrants must be issued by neutral, disinterested magistrates.
Second, those seeking the warrant must demonstrate to the magistrate
their probable cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a
particular apprehension or conviction for a particular offense. Finally,
warrants must particularly describe the things to be seized, as well as
the place to be searched.
Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 255 (1979) (citations and quotation marks
omitted).
Here, Miske challenges the second requirement−the demonstration of
probable cause. 	Specifically, Miske argues that, although the Warrants were
approved by the Magistrate Judge, the Affidavits contain “intentional and reckless
material false statements and omissions” that, if corrected, negate probable cause.
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 9 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

10
Dkt. No. 963 at 1. 	When faced with such an argument, the Supreme Court has
explained that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if (1) the
defendant alleges, with an offer of proof, that an affidavit contains “deliberate
falsehood” or “reckless disregard for the truth”, and (2) once the allegedly deficient
information is set aside, the remaining content is insufficient to support a finding of
probable cause. 	Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-172. 	It is a defendant’s burden to
establish “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the affidavit contains
intentionally or recklessly false statements. 	Id. at 156. 	In addition, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a defendant may challenge an affidavit under
Franks if it “contains deliberate or reckless omissions of facts that tend to mislead.”
United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775, 781 (9th Cir. 1985).
DISCUSSION
As mentioned, an evidentiary hearing was held on the instant motion to
suppress. 	The Court, however, has yet to address whether Miske satisfied the
requirements of Franks.3 	The Court now does so and finds that Miske has failed to
show, even if all alleged false statements and/or misleading omissions are corrected
in the manner urged by Miske, that the remaining content in the Affidavits is
insufficient to show probable cause.
3 This is due largely to the logistical demands of this case, which, in the undersigned’s judgment,
did not permit addressing the question prior to holding an evidentiary hearing such as the one held
here.
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 10 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

11
Miske’s motion challenges the following aspects of the Affidavits: (1) that
law enforcement had “opened” an investigation into Miske in 2014 based upon stale
information more than ten years old and without also stating that the instant
investigation was the fourth one of Miske, with the three prior ones resulting in no
charges being brought; (2) that KTPC’s maximum profit was $250,000 and, thus,
Miske had an illegitimate source of income, when KTPC’s tax returns, which had
been provided to the FBI, showed significantly greater profit; (3) that Miske used the
FV Rachel to smuggle drugs, without disclosing that the boat had been surveilled
and boarded by, inter alia, the U.S. Coast Guard after a journey to California, and no
evidence of drug activity was discovered; (4) that telephone contacts between Miske
and Teramoto provided evidence of drug dealing, when the alleged drug
relationship, at best, had ended by 1998, and Miske had a different and legitimate
reason for communicating with Teramoto between 2014 and 2015; and (5) that
Miske and Stancil had frequent telephone contacts, without disclosing that they are
half-brothers. 	Dkt. No. 963 at 5-19.
In summary, therefore, Miske essentially challenges information related to his
alleged illegitimate income and drug smuggling/dealing, along with two of the many
telephone contacts described in the Affidavits.4 	Even if the Court was willing to
4 Miske’s challenge to the omission of three prior investigations that did not result in charges being
brought is meaningless from a probable cause standpoint. 	This is because the fact that there was
insufficient evidence to charge Miske with a crime in the past – according to Defendant, more than
ten years prior -- has no bearing on whether probable cause existed at the time of the Affidavits.
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 11 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

12
accept that all of the information Miske identifies related to these matters needed to
be corrected, excised or supplemented and that such changes meant none of these
matters provided probable cause for the Warrants, there is still sufficient information
in the Affidavits—information that Miske does not challenge—to provide the
necessary probable cause.
Specifically, at a minimum, the allegations of the Affidavits provided
probable cause of at least gambling and extortion. 	First, gambling. 	As recounted
above, the Affidavits alleged the following. 	Miske and his KTPC employees would
hold meetings each morning during which sports bets were discussed. 	One of
Miske’s employees was the “house” through whom Miske and his other employees
placed wagers. 	Miske complained about losing a $10,000 sports bet and owed
$40,000 in gambling losses to a Honolulu bookie. 	Thorell contacted CI#2 to place
an $8,000 bet on behalf of the “Kama’aina guy”, which CI#2 understood to be
Miske. 	Telephone numbers used by Miske and subscribed by Thorell had frequent
contact between September 2014 and September 2015. 	Cash pay-outs and
collections were often conducted during KTPC meetings.
Miske does not factually challenge these allegations. 	Instead, in one passing,
solitary sentence, he asserts that the gambling allegations are too “generalized” to
constitute probable cause. 	Dkt. No. 963 at 20. 	This conclusory statement,
however, provides no explanation for why the allegations are insufficient to
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 12 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

13
establish probable cause for the offense.5 	At the hearing on the motion to suppress,
Miske’s counsel added, for the first time, that the gambling allegations do not allege
a “business of gambling” as required under the statute cited in the Affidavits, 18
U.S.C. Section 1084. 	However, in light of the allegations in the Affidavits, there
was sufficient probable cause of prohibited gambling. 	See United States v. Cohen,
378 F.2d 751, 758 (9th Cir. 1967) (stating that testimony from three witnesses−that
they placed wagers with the defendant “on a regular basis, settling periodically for
their losses”−was relevant to the issue of whether the defendant was engaged in the
business of betting or wagering for purposes of Section 1084).6
Second, extortion. 	While the Affidavits contain a number of allegations of
violence and threats allegedly committed by Miske and his associates, one in
particular is sufficient here. 	Specifically, the incident involving CW4 in August
2012. 	CW4 reported that he visited M Nightclub and, after food and drinks, asked
for a corrected bill because the initial one showed an error. 	After Miske heard
about this request, security personnel were sent to CW4’s table, pulled CW4 away,
5 Miske’s reply provides no further specific critique of the gambling allegations, at most only
stating that the “unchallenged allegations merely propped up these essential allegations [about
Miske’s alleged illegal source of income and drug dealing].” 	Dkt. No. 987 at 3. 	For the reasons
discussed herein, that is not accurate.
6 At the hearing, counsel also asserted, for the first time, that one of the gambling allegations,
regarding Miske owing $40,000 to a Honolulu bookie, was based upon “undisclosed hearsay”
from a person who had contact with Miske in the past. 	As noted earlier, Miske did not make an
evidentiary challenge to the gambling allegations in his briefing and, thus, he cannot do so in
concluding arguments at the hearing. 	Moreover, despite raising this tardy argument, Miske never
meaningfully explained how the probable cause analysis would alter merely if the Affidavits had
stated that certain allegations, such as the foregoing gambling one, were based upon hearsay−a
valid foundation for probable cause. 	See Franks, 438 U.S. at 165.
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 13 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

14
and repeatedly hit him in his side. 	CW4 was then taken to the back of the club and
placed across from Miske, who told CW4 to pay the bill “or else.” 	CW4 wrote
“fuck security” on the bill, causing Miske to nod at his security, which assaulted
CW4 again. 	After escaping, CW4 was punched in the face by what appeared to be
another Miske employee, losing a tooth in the process.
Again, Miske does not factually challenge these allegations. 	Instead, in
another passing, solitary sentence, he contends that “assault allegations involving
disgruntled customers do not constitute extortion.” 	Dkt. No. 963 at 20 (citations
omitted). 	And again, Miske provides no explanation for this conclusory statement.
Nor, at least with respect to the incident above with CW4, is it accurate. 	See 18
U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) (defining “extortion”, in the context of a statute criminalizing,
inter alia, attempting to interfere with commerce by extortion, as “the obtaining of
property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or
threatened force, violence, or fear….”). 	Here, although the Affidavit does not state
whether Miske was successful in having CW4 pay his bill, the allegations clearly
show that Miske allegedly attempted to interfere with commerce by inducing CW4
to consent to pay the bill through the wrongful use of actual force. 	Merely because
CW4 was disgruntled, as Miske claims, does not mean that CW4 was not
extorted—in fact, that may have very well been the reason for his disgruntlement.
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 14 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

15
In addition, Miske ignores the Affidavits’ assertions that, consistent with
individuals engaged in criminal activity, Miske used multiple telephones and
frequently changed his telephone numbers. 	In other words, Miske does not dispute
these assertions and provides no possible explanation for why he would engage in
such conduct other than being engaged in criminal activity, such as speaking to
Thorell about Miske’s alleged business of gambling.
Therefore, contrary to Miske’s arguments, even if the allegations he actually
challenges, including the ones concerning his allegedly illegitimate source of
income and drug smuggling/dealing, are corrected in the manners he suggests,7
7 With respect to these categories of information, while it is unnecessary for the Court to address
whether the Affidavits intentionally or recklessly contained false or withheld material statements,
the Court agrees with Miske that there was available information that would have made those
allegations more complete. 	For instance, with respect to Miske’s alleged illegitimate source of
income, the Affidavits, at a minimum, imply that Miske’s businesses could not have possibly
generated the income necessary for the lifestyle he lived and, thus, something allegedly illegal
must have been at play. 	The Affidavits, however, fail to discuss or discount any number of
possible sources for Miske’s alleged income that were legitimate, such as income from an
inheritance or a generous, living family member. 	In addition, in light of the evidence provided by
Miske in support of the instant motion, it is clear that, at the very least, the suggestion in the
Affidavits that Miske’s businesses could not provide more profit than $250,000 per year is, at best,
not a complete picture. 	See Dkt. No. 963 at 9-10 (citing Defendant Miske’s Exhibits M-59 at 1,
M-60 at 2, M-61 at 4, M-62 at 1, M-63 at 4). 	The lack of a complete picture is also true of the
allegations related to Miske’s use of the FV Rachel to smuggle drugs into Hawai‘i. 	The
Affidavits state that Miske used the FV Rachel to transport drugs from California by attaching the
drugs to buoys, dropping the buoys in the ocean, and then later using other vessels to locate the
buoys/drugs. 	According to CI#2, Miske had used the FV Rachel to transport a dog from
California, while not unloading any fish. 	However, the Affidavits omit the fact that, upon the FV
Rachel’s return to Hawai‘i, the boat was searched by numerous law enforcement agencies with no
drugs being found. 	The boat was also found with thousands of pounds worth of fish aboard, again
with no mention of that fact in the Affidavits. 	While the government contends in its briefing and
at the evidentiary hearing that this information is “consistent”, or at least not inconsistent, with the
Affidavits, the government misses the point of the Affidavits: to provide a fair and complete
picture of the facts available to the affiant and therefore to the Magistrate Judge. 	Based upon the
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 15 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

16
there was still sufficient information contained in the Affidavits to support a finding
of probable cause for the RICO offenses alleged therein. 	See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5)
(defining “pattern of racketeering activity” as requiring “two acts of racketeering
activity”); id. § 1961(1) (defining “racketeering activity” as including, inter alia,
transmission of gambling information under Section 1084 and interfering with
commerce by extortion under Section 1951). 	As a result, Miske’s challenge to the
Warrants and the evidence derived therefrom must fail.8
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the instant motion to suppress, Dkt. No. 963, is
DENIED. 	The motion to compel, Dkt. No. 1024, is DENIED IN PART and
REFERRED IN PART to the extent set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 14, 2023 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
evidence presented, the Court cannot say that the Affidavits painted such a fair picture on these
specific issues.
8 Nearly three weeks after the October 16, 2023 evidentiary hearing, Miske filed a motion to
compel disclosure of material related to the FV Rachel (“motion to compel”), arguing that the
material was relevant to the instant and another motion to suppress, as well as for trial purposes.
Dkt. No. 1024. 	Because it is beyond the scope of this Order, the Court does not address the
motion to compel to the extent it argues that the government has a duty to produce information
from certain agencies and seeks material for trial purposes, i.e., Parts II, III, IV, and V(B) of the
motion to compel. 	Those parts of the motion are REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge.
To the extent the motion to compel seeks material for purposes of Miske’s motions to suppress,
however, the motion is DENIED. 	This is because any such material would have no effect on the
Court’s finding that the Affidavits provided probable cause for the alleged RICO offenses
independent of the Affidavits’ use of information pertaining to the FV Rachel and to Miske’s
alleged drug smuggling/dealing.
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 16 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

17
United States v. Miske, Case No. 19-cr-00099-DKW-1; ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT
MICHAEL J. MISKE, JR.’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND FRUITS
DERIVED FROM SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANTS 15-01345, 15-01346, AND
15-01347, AND (2) DENYING IN PART AND REFERRING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL
Case 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM Document 1099 Filed 11/14/23 Page 17 of 17
PageID.<pageID>