U.S. v. Rivera
| Decision Date | 31 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 06-027 (JAG). |
| Citation | 465 F.Supp.2d 89 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff(s) v. Eduardo Cruz RIVERA, Defendant(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Federico R. Ducoudray-Acevedo, Ducoudray Acevedo & Associates, Jorge L. Armenteros-Chervoni, Julio A. Gonzalez-Nieves, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.
Nathan Joseph Schulte, Vernon Benet Miles, United States Attorney's Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Suppress filed by defendant Eduardo Cruz-Rivera ("defendant") claiming that all the evidence seized from his Mazda 6 vehicle on January 17, 2006 was the product of an illegal search and seizure without probable cause (Docket No. 23). The Motion to Suppress was referred by the Court to Magistrate-Judge Camille Velez-Rive for hearing and report and recommendation. (Docket No. 25).
Upon de novo review of the Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 47) and defendant's objections thereto (Docket No. 52), the Court finds no reason to depart from the Magistrate-Judge's recommendations and accordingly DENIES the Motion to Suppress.
A district court may, on its own motion, refer a pending matter to a United States Magistrate-Judge for a report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Rule 503, Local Rules, District of Puerto Rico. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Local Rule 510.2, the adversely affected party may contest the report and recommendation by filing written objections "[w]ithin ten days of being served" with a copy of the order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Since timely objections to the report and recommendation have been filed, the Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); Lopez v. Chater, 8 F.Supp.2d 152,154 (D.P.R.1998).
In his Objection to the Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation, the defendant first argues that the Magistrate-Judge erred in dismissing the doctrine set forth in U.S. v. Aiudi 835 F.2d 943 (1st Cir.1987), because the investigation in this case was not a joint federalstate investigation, but rather a state investigation that after a finding of no probable cause at the Rule 6 hearing in state court, was handed over to federal authorities. Defendant's contention is therefore that the federal government is impeded from prosecuting this case because "the transfer to federal authorities was a subterfuge for subverting state law" and such "ruse" is what Aiudi tried to prevent. The Court disagrees.
The Magistrate-Judge's determination that Aiudi does not apply in this case, and that therefore federal prosecution is not precluded, was based on a finding that the evidence the defendant wishes to suppress was obtained as a result of a joint federal-state investigation. This is precisely what defendant challenges: the finding that there was a joint investigation. He argues that "[n]to a scintilla of evidence was presented during the suppression hearing on the cooperation between state and federal agencies." Nevertheless, defendant's challenge is without consequence because even if the evidence he wishes to suppress was obtained as a result of a wholly state-conducted investigation, as the defendant contends, federal prosecution is not precluded.
Moreover, the Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation states that "no evidence whatsoever was presented by the defense at the suppression hearing to support the assertion of alleged intentional unlawful conduct of the law enforcement officers and of alleged selective and vindictive prosecution." Further, even if the search conducted by the Puerto Rico Police Department ("PRPD") officers was found to be illegal by the state court, federal law governs the admissibility of evidence in federal prosecutions. United States v. Wilson, 36 F.3d 205, 208 (1st Cir.1994). Accordingly, this Court shall make an inquiry independent from that of the state courts when determining the admissibility of evidence seized by state officials: Elkins v. U.S., 364 U.S. 206, 224, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). Therefore, federal prosecution is not barred when it is based on evidence obtained in the course of state investigations. Defendant's allegation in this respect lacks merit.
Defendant's other objections all draw upon his argument that the Magistrate-Judge incurred in clear error when she awarded credibility to the testimonies of the government agents that seized the evidence he wishes to suppress. Defendant points to contradictory statements in their testimonies and claims that said contradictions are of such importance that a rational fact finder would conclude that the PRPD officers were not telling the truth and that therefore, the traffic stop and the subsequent inventory search were illegal. The Court disagrees.
After hearing the testimonies of the defendant and the PRPD officers, the Magistrate-Judge determined that the most complete and trustworthy version of the facts was the one she provided in her Report and Recommendation. Although she noted discrepancies in the PRPD officers' versions of the facts, she found said discrepancies to be irrelevant to the main controversy. Consequently, the Court will not tamper with the credibility determinations made by the Magistrate-Judge. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 681 n. 7, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (); United States v. Hernandez-Rodriguez, 443 F.3d 138, 148 (1st Cir.2006)( that a district court may not reject a magistratejudge's findings as to the credibility of a witness without hearing the witness testify first hand); National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Koch Industries Inc., 701 F.2d 108, 111 (10th Cir.1983) ().
For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the traffic stop and the subsequent inventory search were legal. The evidence seized as a result of said actions is admissible under the findings of the Report and Recommendation and applicable law.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and DENIES defendant's motion to suppress (Docket No. 23).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Eduardo Cruz-Rivera ("Cruz-Rivera") filed a Motion to Suppress claiming all the evidence seized from his Mazda 6 vehicle on January 17, 2006 was the product of an illegal search and seizure without probable cause. Cruz-Rivera avers the officers of the Puerto Rico Police Department ("PRPD") lied about the probable cause requirement in order to administratively search the vehicle at the Vega Baja Police Station by alleging there was a firearm at plain view inside the vehicle. (Docket No. 23).
The Government filed its Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Suppression of Evidence claiming the initial stop of the vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion and defendant's subsequent arrest and search of the vehicle were lawful. Accordingly, the Government claims the evidence should not be suppressed. (Docket No. 24)
The Motion to Suppress was referred by the Court to the undersigned for hearing and report and recommendation. (Docket Nos. 24 and 25).
The evidentiary hearing was held on June 20, June 21 and July 14, 2006 wherein the testimonies of Puerto Rico Police Officers ("PRPOs") Orlando Guzman-Velez ("PRPO Guzman"), Angel Carrer-Rivera ("PRPO Carrer"), Jose L. Ruiz-Pagan ("PRPO Ruiz") and defendant Cruz-Rivera, were presented. (Docket Nos. 33, 34 and 37).
On June 21, 2006, a visual inspection of defendant's vehicle was conducted by the Court at the parking lot of the United States Marshal Service. The Court inspected the vehicle in the presence of defendant, his attorneys and attorneys for the Government. (Docket No. 34).
Transcripts for the suppression hearing were requested and filed. (Docket Nos. 36, 38 and 39). On August 21, 2006, the certified translations of Government's Exhibits 1 and 2 were filed.1 (Docket No. 42). Transcript of the visual inspection was requested and filed on September 6, 2006.2 (Docket No. 45).
PRPO Guzman, Badge #27794, has worked for the PRPD for eight (8) years. On January 17, 2006, PRPO Guzman attended a matter in the state court in Bayanion and, upon leaving the court and in transit to the Vega Baja Drugs Division on Highway No. 22, he was driving behind a black Mazda 6 vehicle. PRPO Guzman was in a marked PRPD vehicle along with PRPO Carrer. As soon as PRPO Guzman was behind the Mazda 6 vehicle, he noticed the vehicle made an improper lane change by improperly cutting to the left in front of another vehicle. As soon as the improper lane change was made, PRPO Guzman followed the Mazda 6 vehicle and observed it was going at a high rate of speed. PRPO Guzman immediately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Villa-Guillen
...specific parts of a vehicle to be examined in an inventory search. See Dkt. 69-1 (PPR-128); Dkt. 71 (certified translation of PPR-128). In Cruz-Rivera, the PRPD officers searched in accordance with the PPR-128. See, e.g., Cruz-Rivera, 465 F. Supp. 2d at 108-10. On the other hand, those offi......
-
State v. Williams
...on the vehicle, and evidence of a hidden compartment behind the rear passenger seat was detected immediately”); United States v. Rivera, 465 F.Supp.2d 89, 109 (D.P.R.2006) (“while they were finishing the inventory of the vehicle, [police officers] were able to observe that in the seat in th......