In an ongoing criminal case against Dr. Vinay Bararia, the United States Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr., ruled that the Government’s alleged failure to minimize the intercepted communications, even if found to be pervasive, does not warrant the dismissal of the indictment.

In July of this year, Dr. Bararia’s high powered legal team filed a motion to dismiss indictment for the outrageous Government conduct. 

According to recent Court filings, Dr. Bararia’s lawyers, former federal prosecutor Kathleen Bliss and famed Michael Jackson criminal defense attorney Thomas Mesereau, have accused the federal government of inappropriately naming the investigation of Dr. Bararia “Operation Slumdog Billionaire,” an apparent reference to the Hollywood movie about street children in India. 

According to Dr. Bararia’s lawyers, the government engaged in other forms of misconduct such as allegedly telling his wife, Bhavna Bararia, that her husband “would not be able to see [her] unborn child till he was an adult.”  When Mrs. Bararia requested an attorney, federal agents allegedly told her that “would get her and Dr. Bararia into more trouble.”  The papers filed by Dr. Bararia’s attorneys request that the federal court suppress evidence seized from Dr. Bararia’s home and dismiss the case against him.  According to the defense lawyers Bliss and Messereau, federal agents seized Dr. Bararia’s “children’s piggy banks” and money from a “prayer donation box.”  

In August 2013, the Government filed its opposition to Dr. Bararia’s motion.  Judge ruled that the Government made a sufficient showing of necessity for the issuance of the wiretap orders and an evidentiary hearing was granted in regard to whether the wiretap evidence should be suppressed in its entirety. 

It is ruled that the Government’s alleged failure to minimize the interception of telephone conversations and text messages does not rise to the level of outrageous government conduct or flagrant prosecutorial misconduct that would support dismissal of the indictment. 

In addition, most of the counts in the indictment are based on alleged transactions that occurred prior to the issuance of the wiretap order.  The one of the charge involving the attempted narcotics transaction between Dr. Bararia and Special Agent Prochnow on March 1, 2012 could also probably be proven without the introduction of the wiretap evidence since it allegedly arose out of direct communication between Dr. Bararia and the undercover officer.

The Government may also be able to prove that Dr. Bararia engaged in the conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance without the wiretap evidence.  Judge Foley ruled that Dr. Bararia’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on the Government’s failure to minimize the wiretap interceptions is therefore without merit.