Date: 06-13-2025

Case Style:

United States of America v. Dashawn Leonard Garrett, a/k/a Dutch

Case Number: 21-CR-201

Judge: Terrence W. Boyle

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Wake County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Raleigh

Defendant's Attorney: Nathan Wilson. Meredith Brewer, Christian Dysart, Geoffrey Willis

Description: Raleigh, North Carolina criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with drug and firearm felonies.

In early 2021, North Carolina law enforcement began using two confidential informants (“CI-1” and “CI-2,” or collectively, “the CIs”) to investigate suspected methamphetamine dealing. CI-1 alerted law enforcement that someone named Gregg McDuffie, also known as “Duff,” was selling methamphetamine. J.A. 89.2 Using the CIs as purchasers, law enforcement executed three controlled buys on who they thought was McDuffie. As it turned out, however, the person they surveilled and believed to be McDuffie was Appellant Dashawn Garrett. We recite the facts here as law enforcement understood them at the time they occurred. Accordingly, all references to “McDuffie’s” actions in sections I.A–I.C appear as they did in the warrant affidavits submitted to the warrant-granting judge, but the actions are actually attributable to Garrett.

In the first controlled buy, the Johnston County Sheriff’s Office and Raleigh’s Drug Enforcement Administration office established surveillance on McDuffie’s residence. [J.A.89]. CI-1 called McDuffie on a phone number ending in -1711 and arranged for the purchase of $860 worth of methamphetamine at a nearby McDonald’s. [JA. 89]. Law enforcement surveilled the residence as McDuffie left the house and drove to the McDonald’s. They continued watching as CI-1, who was recording the interaction, entered McDuffie’s car and purchased methamphetamine. CI-1 turned the recording and the drugs over to law enforcement after McDuffie left the premises.

Afterward, a Johnston County superior court judge issued Detective Ebersole of the Johnston County Sheriff’s Office a warrant to tap the phone number McDuffie used to coordinate the buy (“the PRTT warrant”). S.A. 1007–20.3 In the arrant’s supporting affidavit, Detective Ebersole affirmed that CI-1 advised Detective Massey, of the Wilson County Sheriff’s Office, that “a Gregg McDuffie, alias ‘Duff’ . . . was involved in the distribution of multiple ounces of ethamphetamine,” and of the details of the evidence gathered in the first controlled buy. Id. at 1008.

In the second controlled buy, the City of Wilson Police Department, Wilson County Sheriff’s Office, and Johnston County Sheriff’s Office developed CI-2 as a confidential informant and used CI-2 to execute a second controlled buy. J.A. 92. I-2 had never worked as a confidential informant before and was compensated for participation. Law enforcement intended for the second buy to mirror the first—they set up surveillance, and CI-2 called to arrange a purchase of methamphetamine and ecstasy pills. Before the deal began, McDuffie said that he could not deliver the drugs, but that his cousin, Trevor Cole-Evans, would stand in his place. J.A. 117. CI-2 then contacted Cole-Evans and purchased
the drugs from him. Like the first buy, the entire exchange was recorded and surveilled. After the second buy, a Wilson County superior court judge issued Detective Massey of the Wilson County Sheriff’s Office a warrant to tap the phone number Cole-Evans used to facilitate the buy. The warrant application was supported by evidence of the first controlled buy where “[d]etectives were able to purchase a quantity of crystal methamphetamine from McDuffie,” and evidence of Cole-Evans’ involvement in the second buy. J.A. 117.

The City of Wilson Police Department, Wilson County Sheriff’s Office, and Johnston County Sheriff’s Office—the law enforcement groups from the second controlled buy—used CI-2 to initiate a third buy with McDuffie. [J.A. 94]. Like before, they established surveillance of the residence, observed McDuffie traveling to the purchase, and
CI-2 recorded audio and visuals of the exchange.

A few days after the buy, a Johnston County Sheriff’s Office deputy carried out a traffic stop. Cole-Evans was driving the car, and the person law enforcement knew as “McDuffie” was in the passenger seat. J.A. 94–95. The deputy conducted a probable cause search, discovered suspected methamphetamine, and placed both vehicle occupants under arrest. At this point, law enforcement discovered that the man they believed to be McDuffie was Dashawn Garrett. J.A. 232 (Department of Justice report stating that “during the traffic stop . . . it was discovered that who has been previously referred to as
Gregg McDuffie in this case file is actually Dashawn Leonard Garrett.”); see also J.A. 129 (Wilson County Sheriff’s Office summary of events stating, “[i]nvestigators in this case mistakenly identified [Garrett] as Gregory Latroy McDuffie during the duration of this case. This mistake was found upon the arrest of Garrett”); J.A. 135–36 (Government
briefing below stating that “[i]t was during this stop that Investigators discovered the man they’d been buying methamphetamine [from] . . . was not Gregory McDuffie, but instead” Garrett).

After the arrest, the Johnston County judge issued Detective Ebersole another warrant, this time to search the residence where law enforcement established surveillance for the controlled buys. The warrant application included a photo of the real McDuffie and listed him as a person to be searched. J.A. 85. In the probable cause affidavit, Detective Ebersole again affirmed that CI-1 “advised Detective Massey that a Gregg McDuffie, alias ‘Duff’ . . . was involved in the distribution of multiple ounces of methamphetamine.” J.A. 89. The affidavit chronicled the surveillance and the three controlled buys with “McDuffie,” J.A. 89–94, and ended with the information about the arresting traffic stop, J.A. 94–95. Detective Ebersole stated that the arresting deputy “approached the passenger side [of the vehicle] and identified the passenger as Gregory McDuffie. [He] . . . then detected an overwhelming odor of green marijuana. A probable cause search of the vehicle recovered a large quantity of suspected methamphetamine. Both occupants were placed under arrest.” J.A. 95.

On May 4, 2021, the Government filed an initial indictment, and on February 15, 2022, the Government charged Garrett and Cole-Evans in a joint nine-count indictment for various drug and firearm-related violations. See J.A. 326–31 (filed under seal). Both defendants moved separately to suppress the evidence that resulted from the search warrants. Garrett asked the court to suppress all evidence from the residence search, the PRTT warrant, and the arresting traffic stop. J.A. 70. Relevant here, he argued that the failure to disclose the identity mix-up between himself and McDuffie amounted to a material omission that defeated probable cause. J.A. 71–72, 74. In its opposition motion, the Government explained that a confidential informant told investigators that a man known as “Dutch,” which is Garrett’s nickname, was selling methamphetamine, and that the informant positively identified McDuffie as “Dutch” based on a photo presented by investigators. J.A. 131. The Government’s motion also detailed the three controlled buys, but never distinguished between the CIs. Instead, it referred only to one confidential source as “the CS” throughout the briefing. See J.A. 131–35.

Cole-Evans asked the court to suppress all information discovered through his phone tap and evidence discovered during the arresting traffic stop. J.A. 106. Briefing for both motions was completed by February 1, 2022. One day later, on February 2, 2022, while the motions were pending before the court, the Government provided the defendants with additional discovery disclosures. According to Garrett’s counsel, the documents in the February 2 disclosure consisted of 775 pages of information.

On February 22, the court denied Cole-Evans’ motion to suppress. Shortly afterward, Garrett moved to withdraw his motion because he thought proceeding would be “risky,” given the denial of Cole-Evans’ motion. Opening Br. at 7. According to Garrett, he was worried that “[t]he district court [might] interpret [his] decision to pursue the suppression motion . . . as a refusal to accept responsibility.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, he stated his intent to accept a plea deal. On March 16, Garrett pled guilty to three counts of the indictment. The district court held a Rule 11 colloquy and confirmed that Garrett voluntarily entered the agreement. J.A. 261; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)–(2) (Under Rule 11, the court must determine that the defendant understands the effects of pleading guilty, and “the court must address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary”). Four months later, on July 11, the district court sentenced Garrett to 240 months’ imprisonment.

Outcome: We find that a reasonable defendant standing in Garrett’s shoes would not have pled guilty had he or she known all the relevant information. Therefore,
Garrett’s plea was involuntary and is now vacated.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: