After weighing the issue for several months, the judge in the federal case facing poker player/businessman Paul Phua has issued a ruling as to the tactics employed by federal agents last summer in Las Vegas.
Judge Andrew Gordon, responding Friday afternoon to a motion by Phua’s attorneys that the method of obtaining evidence violated Phua’s constitutional rights, agreed with Phua’s attorneys in making his determination. “Permitting the government to create the need for the occupant to invite a third party into his or her home would effectively allow the government to conduct warrantless searches of the vast majority of residences and hotel rooms in America,” Gordon wrote in his decision. “The government need only disrupt the phone, cable, internet or some other ‘non-essential’ service, and reasonable people will opt to invite a third party onto their property to repair it, unwittingly allowing government agents into the most private spaces to view and record whatever and whomever they see.”
The decision is a critical one due to the fact that the federal case seems to be completely built off of evidence that was either obtained during their unlawful access of Phua’s villa at Caesars Palace or from the search warrant that was obtained after their incursion into the villa. While Gordon did not immediately rule on the admissibility of that evidence pending any appeals process from federal prosecutors, if his ruling stands he would have to deem the evidence obtained inadmissible in court, leaving federal attorneys with little to work off of outside of that evidence.
Gordon’s decision flies in the face of a previous ruling from another federal Judge, Peggy Leen, who determined that the federal agents were within their rights to conduct their ruse to gain entry into the Phua villa last summer. Leen, however, had several problems with the federal government’s actions following the undercover operation, stating that the warrants that resulted from the evidence obtained from said operation “were riddled with mistakes and misleading statements,” least of which was not informing the judge who issued the warrant of how they obtained their information, which might have led that judge to deny the document. “The investigators’ suspicions that Phua was engaged in illegal sports betting…may be borne out by evidence recovered in the execution of the warrant,” Leen wrote in her decision at that time. “However, a search warrant is never validated by what its execution recovers.”
The Phua case dates back to July 2014 when, after getting tips that Phua and several associates were running an elaborate betting ring on the 2014 World Cup out of his villa at Caesars Palace, federal officials began to investigate. Lacking any concrete information, the federal authorities arranged for an internet outage to the villa, which led to Phua calling technicians to come and repair the issue. Instead of actually sending technicians, federal agents pretending to be technicians went to the villa and were allowed access.
The undercover agents, outfitted with hidden cameras, went to great lengths to record the activities (including aiming their cameras at active computers, online betting sites and documents on tables) in the Phua villa and, after correcting the issue, returned with the incriminating video. Through that video, federal authorities obtained their search warrant – without informing the judge of how they obtained their information – and conducted a raid on July 9, arresting Phua, his son Darren and six other men arrested on illegal gambling charges. The feds have alleged that the operation netted $13 million while Phua’s defense has mostly concentrated on the actions of law enforcement rather than his actions (his son and five of the other men pled guilty to charges and have suspended sentences provided they don’t return to the United States; the sixth man had charges dropped).
What Judge Gordon’s decision will have on the Phua case is pretty cut and dried. The federal attorneys can appeal his decision, but it is unlikely that it will be overturned by an appeals court. Thus, they are left with trying to continue with a case that will likely have perhaps three-quarters of its evidence deemed as inadmissible because of the conduct of the federal agents. Facing such long odds, it is extremely likely that the charges brought against Paul Phua will be dismissed rather than trying to push a case with flimsy evidence. It is also possible that, without the evidence obtained through the illegal undercover work and the subsequently illegal warrant, the judge may side with Phua’s attorneys and dismiss the case.
