govinfo:USCOURTS-vtd-2_23-cr-00119-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF VERMONT 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
US r-,...:·· • ;U0/i/iC[COURT 
DIS TR/CT OF VERMONT 
FILED 
2026 HAR -4 PH '4: 35 
BY L.b-
Gi:PIITY CLERK 
v. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Case No. 2:23-cr-119-1, 2 
BA YOHAN MANGUAL and 
JOANNE DA VIS, 
Defendants. 
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE (Doc. 236, 245) 
Following a fatal shooting and the wounding of a second man at a residence in 
Rutland, Vermont on September 2, 2023, the Rutland City police conducted an 
investigation. On October 18, 2023, a federal grandjury indicted defendant 
Bayohan Mangual on a single count of felon in possession of a firearm in violation 
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). On November 10, 2023, law enforcement applied in the 
District of Connecticut for a warrant authorizing a search of Mr. Mangual's home 
in New Britain, Connecticut. Mr. Mangual moves to suppress evidence found in 
the search on two bases: 
1. An incorrect statement concerning his criminal history. The affidavit states 
that in addition to federal convictions in Connecticut on drug charges in 
2014 and 2017 and a state felony conviction, also in Connecticut, for a 
2:23-cr-00119-gwc     Document 292     Filed 03/04/26     Page 1 of 4
firearms offense, Mr. Mangual has a 2013 misdemeanor drug conviction in 
Pennsylvania. This is not correct. He has no convictions in Pennsylvania. 1 
2. An incorrect statement that "Ring camera" security footage shows a man in 
a hoodie in a distinct blue color stuff what appears to be a handgun inside a 
bag. 
Mr. Mangual seeks a Franks hearing to further challenge the truthfulness of 
these statements. 
ANALYSIS 
The decision of the Supreme Court in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 
requires a showing of a false statement made with reckless disregard for the 
truth that is material to the probable cause determination. Neither of the 
statements in this case meet that standard. 
I. The mistake concerning a prior misdemeanor conviction 
The mistake concerning the Pennsylvania misdemeanor conviction is not 
material nor is there any likelihood that it meets the recklessness standard. Mr. 
Mangual's criminal record is relevant to the probable cause inquiry because it 
includes two prior federal felony convictions for drug offenses and a state 
firearms violation. The information that he had a misdemeanor drug 
conviction 10 years before in Pennsylvania (while incorrect) was 
inconsequential beside three more recent drug and gun convictions. 
1 The Government notes that he has three misdemeanor convictions in Connecticut. Information not provided to the 
judge who issued the search warrant is irrelevant to the issue of probable cause and the court does not consider these 
convictions. 
2 
2:23-cr-00119-gwc     Document 292     Filed 03/04/26     Page 2 of 4
II. The surveillance video 
The court has reviewed the surveillance tape that gave rise to the statement in 
paragraph 15 of the affidavit that "the male in the teal-colored hoodie appeared 
to place an item inside the bag. RPD Detective Corporal Lucia slowed down 
the footage and observed that the item appeared to be a black handgun." The 
man appears on the screen for only a few seconds, but it is long enough to 
observe a black object in his right hand- bigger than a phone and shaped in a 
general way like a handgun. As he runs, he stuffs the object into a small duffel 
or backpack he is carrying in his left hand. 
The statement in paragraph 15 is not erroneous. The object does appear to be a 
black handgun. It is not a phone, a wallet, a purse, or a handbag. It could be a 
tool of some kind or another solid object such as an auto part. But having 
looked at the video carefully, a gun is high on the court's list of likely suspects. 
Certainly there may not be enough information to identify the make or model or 
whether it is an automatic or a revolver. But Corporal Lucia did not overplay 
the hand. He stated only that the item appeared to be a black handgun and that 
statement is consistent with the court's own observation. The statement was not 
false. 
The statement was also not material in the sense that it was not necessary to 
support issuance of a search warrant. It formed only a small portion of the 
evidence giving rise to probable cause to suspect that Mr. Mangual had 
committed the offense of felon in possession. 
The affidavit contains statements from two witnesses supporting a finding of 
probable cause: 
3 
2:23-cr-00119-gwc     Document 292     Filed 03/04/26     Page 3 of 4
• An individual arrested by Rutland police on September 9, 2023, 
described working with Mr. Mangual to bring large quantities of fentanyl 
and cocaine base into Vermont on multiple occasions. He told law 
enforcement that he had seen "Drake" possess guns in order to protect 
himself. He provided a detailed account of the shooting he received from 
"Drake" a few days after the incident on September 2. Drake (Mangual) 
told him that two males had pushed into the apartment to rob him and 
that he had shot one who entered his room. 
• Another person arrested on September 12, 2023, admitted to allowing 
"Drake" to sell drugs out of her apartment in Rutland. Several witnesses 
in Massachusetts and Connecticut identified photos of "Drake" as Mr. 
Mangual. 
These witness statements are sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to 
search Mr. Mangual 's residence for evidence of firearm offenses. 
The defense contends that unspecified inconsistencies in the statements of the 
witnesses about Mr. Mangual's activities in Vermont render the affidavit 
unreliable. In fact, the witness statements are generally consistent in their 
description of Mr. Mangual's activities even though law enforcement received 
them from different people and at different times. 
For these reasons, the court DENIES the request for an evidentiary hearing and 
DENIES the motion to suppress. 
Dated: March 4, 2026. 
Geoffrey Crawford, 
Senior District Court Judge 
4 
2:23-cr-00119-gwc     Document 292     Filed 03/04/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight