United States v. Rodríguez-Pacheco

• Decision Date: 15 January 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-1391,18-1391
• Citation: 948 F.3d 1
• Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Gabriel RODRÍGUEZ-PACHECO, Defendant, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

948 F.3d 1

UNITED STATES, Appellee,

v.Gabriel RODRÍGUEZ-PACHECO, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 18-1391

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

January 15, 2020

Lauren E.S. Rosen, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with whom Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, Vivianne M. Marrero, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Supervisor, Appeals Section, and Liza L. Rosado-Rodríguez, Research and Writing Specialist, were on brief, for appellant.

Francisco A. Besosa-Martínez, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, and Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, were on brief, for appellee.

Before Howard, Chief Judge, Thompson and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

Let's start our work with the big picture: Gabriel Rodríguez-Pacheco ("Rodríguez") was a police officer for the Puerto Rico Police Department who was accused of domestic violence, and when some fellow officers showed up at his mother's house (where he was living) in connection with that accusation, a warrantless entry into the house and seizure of Rodríguez's cellphone, camera, and laptop ensued. A later search of the laptop revealed incriminating evidence of the domestic abuse charge, as well as images of unrelated criminal conduct that form the basis for the charges against him in the case now before us. In the lead-up to his trial, Rodríguez moved to suppress the electronics and the information gleaned from them, along with statements he made to the police. The lower court granted the motion as to some statements Rodríguez made, but denied it as to others. Important here, the lower court denied Rodríguez's motion to suppress seized evidence. Rodríguez appealed, and that's where we come in.

But before we embark upon our analysis, we provide an up-front spoiler to explain why we forgo both a lengthy beginning-to-end rundown of the facts (arrest, search, and seizure) and a comprehensive recap of the lower court's reasoning, ultimately leap-frogging some of the arguments before us and not even reaching others. We do this because, for reasons we'll explain, we agree with Rodríguez on a threshold (literally) issue: the officers' warrantless entry into the house, on the grounds that exigent circumstances existed (as the lower court found), was unconstitutional, and, on this record, there is no evidence demonstrating a different exception to the warrant requirement. For reasons we will explain, we remand Rodríguez's case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Facts

As is often the case in the motion-to-suppress context, the parties here do not share the same view of the facts. But when we review a challenge to a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we are to " ‘view the facts in the light most favorable to the district court's ruling’ on the motion."¹ United States v. Camacho, 661 F.3d 718, 723 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Soares, 521 F.3d 117, 118 (1st Cir. 2008) ). And "[w]e recite the key facts as found by the district court, consistent with the record support, noting where relevant [Rodríguez]'s contrary view of the testimony presented at the suppression hearing." United States v. Young, 835 F.3d 13, 15 (1st Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Werra, 638 F.3d 326, 328 (1st Cir. 2011) ).

Officer Nelson Murillo-Rivera ("Officer Murillo"), who works for the Domestic Violence Division in the Ponce region of Puerto Rico, was off-duty on February 28, 2015 when he was approached by his wife's coworker (we refer to her -- using common law enforcement parlance -- as "the victim"), who complained that Rodríguez, with whom she had once been in a relationship, had been sending her threatening text messages. Officer Murillo testified that he saw these complained-of text messages in which Rodríguez was threatening to publish photos and videos of a sexual nature of the victim if she did not agree to rekindle their relationship.

Officer Murillo reported the above-described episode to the director of the domestic violence unit; later,² he was instructed by the district attorney to locate and arrest Rodríguez pursuant to "established procedure."³ According to Officer Murillo, that procedure is why he did not get a warrant -- he said that, "according to [the procedure], ... anyone alleged to have committed domestic violence must immediately be placed under arrest." And Officer Murillo testified that, in accordance with that procedure and because Rodríguez was a police officer, the proper course of action was to locate and disarm him, explain the complaint to him, then place him under arrest.

Intending to carry out this procedure, around midnight, Officer Murillo headed to Rodríguez's house in Yauco, Puerto Rico with several officers, one of whom was Officer Roberto Santiago ("Officer Santiago").⁴ The officers had trouble locating Rodríguez's house until they came across a woman (who happened to be Rodríguez's sister) -- when the officers indicated that they were looking for Rodríguez, she led them to their mother's house, then went inside to tell Rodríguez the police were outside.

Officer Murillo testified that Rodríguez "immediately" came outside to the front of the house. Officer Murillo introduced himself, informed Rodríguez that a woman had filed a domestic violence complaint against Rodríguez, and asked if he knew the woman. Rodríguez said he knew the woman, and so Officer Murillo told Rodríguez that the officers needed to seize his service weapon, and he would have to go to the police station to be questioned.

Officer Murillo did not handcuff Rodríguez, despite the point of the visit being to arrest him, and he explained that was because Rodríguez "was very cooperative and his family looked like really decent people."

Officer Murillo asked Rodríguez if he was armed -- he described the exchange as follows:

... I asked him, "where is your weapon?" He said, "It's in my bedroom. I'll come right back and I'll go fetch it." Immediately I told him, "No, I'll go with you. You tell me where the weapon is and I'll seek it." To which he answered me, "Okay, no problem." He made a gesture with his hand and said, "follow me."

Rodríguez testified that he did not consent (verbally or nonverbally) for Officer Murillo to enter the house.

Officer Murillo followed Rodríguez into the house. Officer Santiago testified that he saw Officer Murillo follow Rodríguez into the house and decided to go in as well for the safety of Officer Murillo.

For the reason we previewed above, we do not spill much ink to describe the events that unfolded after this -- both in the house and later at the police station -- but we do provide enough to contextually round out the story. Once inside the house and then Rodriguez's bedroom, Officer Murillo retrieved the service weapon and also seized a Go-Pro camera, a white laptop, and a cell phone, all of which he believed could be related to the domestic violence accusation. Officer Santiago testified that he didn't scan or sweep the bedroom for weapons or anything else that could pose a threat to his safety, and that Rodríguez was passive during the seizure. Then, at the police station,⁵ after Officer Murillo read Rodríguez his Miranda rights and Rodríguez signed a document indicating that he understood and wanted to invoke those rights, the two reviewed the complaint against Rodríguez, and Officer Murillo told Rodríguez he'd be spending the night in a cell. During this meeting, Rodríguez said (according to Officer Murillo), "I'm going to ask you for something from the bottom of my heart" -- "please let me erase something from the computer." Officer Murillo refused, then took Rodríguez to a cell. The next day, again according to Officer Murillo, Rodríguez "desperately" asked Murillo, "Who's coming to look for me, ICE, ICE?"

Murillo got a search warrant for the seized electronics, and that's what ultimately put Rodríguez on the hook for the charges levied against him in the case before us -- authorities found videos and images of Rodríguez engaging in sexual conduct with the victim, as well as videos and images of Rodríguez engaging in sexual conduct with several female minors between the ages of 16 and 17 years old. On March 26, 2015, a federal grand jury indicted Rodríguez on sixteen counts of production of child pornography, violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e), and another count of possession of child pornography involving prepubescent minors, violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2).

The Proceedings

Before trial, Rodríguez filed a motion to suppress -- specifically, he said the electronics that were seized and the files within them, his pre-Miranda statements, and the two post-Miranda statements all merited suppression. As is relevant to our analysis today, Rodríguez argued there was no consent to enter the house, nor did any other exception to the warrant requirement apply. The government opposed the motion, arguing solely that Rodríguez had consented to the officers' entry, and it would be "ludicrous" if officers had to wait outside while Rodríguez went in to fetch the weapon the officers were there to seize. The magistrate judge held two hearings, then issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") granting the motion as to the pre-Miranda statements, but denying it as to everything else.

In keeping with our approach to this point, we limit our recap of the R&R to that which is germane to our analysis, which, as we've said, is focused on the officers' entry into the house. The magistrate judge found that the officers had probable cause to arrest, and the arrest occurred the moment the police arrived at Rodríguez's home.⁶ Critically, the magistrate judge concluded that the warrantless entry was constitutional, but there was no need to get into consent: "[i]t is unnecessary to determine whether [Rodríguez] consented, because officers were authorized under the exigent circumstances...