United States v. Barraza

• Decision Date: 27 June 2016
• Docket Number: No.15-CR-01015 MV,15-CR-01015 MV
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALFREDO BARRAZA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALFREDO BARRAZA, Defendant.

No.15-CR-01015 MV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

June 27, 2016

Appearances:

For the United States:

DAMON P. MARTINEZ

United States Attorney

201 3rd Street NW

Suite 900

Albuquerque, NM 87114

By: JOEL MEYERS

Assistant United States Attorney

KRISTOPHER HOUGHTON

Assistant United States Attorney

For the Defendant:

STEPHEN P. MCCUE

Federal Public Defender

111 Lomas NW

Suite 501

Albuquerque, NM 87102

By: MICHAEL A. KEEFE

Assistant Federal Public Defender

KURT MAYER

Assistant Federal Public Defender

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Alfredo Barraza's Motion to Suppress Evidence (the Motion) related to the inventory search of a parked vehicle in which Mr. Barraza was seated as well as oral statements from Mr. Barraza after the arresting officer attempted to Mirandize him [Doc. 45]. The government responded to the Motion [Doc. 51] and Mr. Barraza replied [Doc. 52]. The government also submitted supplemental briefing on the issue of standing, [Doc. 60], to which Mr. Barraza submitted a supplemental reply [Doc. 61]. The Court held a hearing on this motion on April 28, 2016 and ordered that the parties submit their closing arguments in writing [see Doc. 63]. Both parties submitted their written closing arguments on May 12, 2016 [Doc. 66-67].

The Court, having considered the motions, briefs, relevant law, closing arguments, and being otherwise fully informed, finds that Mr. Barraza's Motion will be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On December 16, 2014, Officer Shultz of the Albuquerque Police Department was patrolling a neighborhood in the southeastern portion of Albuquerque, New Mexico in response to a high volume of vehicle break-ins in the area. Doc. 63, Tr. at 20-26 ("we'd been having issues with auto burglaries and auto thefts in this area. What we were seeing was vehicle break-ins, where people would either force entry by damaging a window or popping a lock to a vehicle, gaining entry, [and] taking property out."). At that time, the Albuquerque Police Department received over two calls a day reporting auto burglaries in that portion of Albuquerque. Id. at 24. Responding to the high volume of auto thefts, Officer Shultz developed a "Tact[ical] Plan" to patrol the area for vehicular theft and burglary, including a map of Officer Shultz's intended patrol radius. Id. at 25; Ex 1, Tact. Plan Map.

At approximately 2:30 p.m., Officer Shultz saw the Defendant, Mr. Barraza, sitting in the driver's seat of a parked red Cadillac, staring at Officer Shultz in an "odd" manner. Id. at 28. Although Mr. Barraza was in the driver's seat of the Cadillac, the Cadillac was parked along the curb in front of Cynthia Jaramillo's apartment, where Mr. Barraza sometimes stayed. Id. at 108-09.¹ Officer Shultz pulled in behind the parked Cadillac and noted that the registration was expired and the license plate was registered to a woman named Claudia Herrera. Id. at 28. Ms. Herrera is Mr. Barraza's sister and registered owner of the Cadillac. Doc. 63, Hearing Tr., at 8. Mr. Barraza attempted to exit the vehicle, whereupon Officer Shultz turned on his police lights, instructed Mr. Barraza to remain in the vehicle, and asked Mr. Barraza for proof of the vehicle's registration. Ex. 3-1; Doc. 63, Hearing Tr., at 28. Mr. Barraza informed the officer that he did not have the documentation and was not driving the parked Cadillac. Ex. 3-1.

Mr. Barraza then gave the officer false identifying information and Officer Shultz was resultantly unable to identify Mr. Barraza. Doc. 63, Hearing Tr., at 34. Upon further questioning, Mr. Barraza gave Officer Shultz a second set of false identifying information and then attempted to flee from Officer Shultz. Id. at 35-37. Officer Shultz called for backup, chased down Mr. Barraza, and handcuffed him, id. whereupon Mr. Barraza gave Mr. Shultz his correct identifying information. Id. at 39-40. The firearm at issue in this suppression was not visible from the exterior of the vehicle during Officer Shultz's questioning. Doc. 67, US Closing Brief, at 4.

Unbeknownst to Officer Shultz, Ms. Herrera had loaned the Cadillac at issue in this case to Mr. Barraza and Mr. Barraza was making payments to Ms. Herrera on the Cadillac with the intention of purchasing it. Doc. 63, Hearing Tr., at 8-9. On the day Officer Shultz arrested Mr. Barraza, Mr. Barraza had parked the Cadillac in front of the apartment he used to live in with a woman named "Jenny." Id. at 108, 118. Although Mr. Barraza no longer lived in the apartmentwith Jenny, he had moved his personal property into an adjacent unit rented by Cynthia Jaramillo and her husband. Id. at 120. Mr. Barraza stayed with Ms. Jaramillo three-to-four nights a week because he "had nowhere to go." Id. at 120 - 21.

Upon running Mr. Barraza's correct information, Officer Shultz determined that Mr. Barraza had a felony warrant out for his arrest. Id. at 39-40. Officer Shultz also consulted with the other officers on the scene (who arrived in response to Officer Shultz's backup call) regarding whether Officer Shultz had probable cause to search Mr. Barraza's vehicle. Id. at 49-50. Although Officer Shultz recorded much of the arrest and the resulting search with a video-camera, see Exs. 3-1-3-9, Officer Shultz did not record his conversation with the other officers regarding why he was considering searching the vehicle or whether he had probable cause to do so. Doc. 67, US Closing Brief, at 6 (citing Doc. 63, Hearing Tr., at 56-57). Explaining the conversation, Officer Shultz testified that:

There were a couple of detectives and supervisors that had showed up on the scene, mostly because foot chases attract attention so they wanted to check on me. While they're there, I asked if we had enough for a warrant. And they said, Probably [sic] not, since we can't tell for sure that there's stolen property or a firearm inside the vehicle just from looking at it.

Doc. 63, Hearing Tr., at 49-50. Officer Shultz did testify under oath that he was "not 'interested in searching the car' for evidence, but merely 'interested in securing the car.'"

After Officer Shultz's discussion regarding whether he had probable cause to search the vehicle, Officer Shultz returned to the curb where Mr. Barraza sat handcuffed and read Mr. Barraza his Miranda rights. Doc. 63, Hearing Tr., at 53. Officer Shultz then proceeded to ask Mr. Barraza what he wanted the police to do with the Cadillac. Ex. 3-5; Ex. 3-6. Initially, Mr. Barraza resisted leaving the car on the street, stating "they'll fucking rob my . . . they'll steal mysister's car, man. . . . Look at the neighborhood." Id. However, once Officer Shultz informed Mr. Barraza that he was considering impounding the vehicle, Mr. Barraza stated that he did not want it impounded and offered several alternatives to impoundment. Id. The alternatives offered by Mr. Barraza including leaving the Cadillac parked at the curb, Doc. 63, Hearing Tr., at 80, moving the car into the adjacent parking lot that contained security cameras, id. turning the Cadillac over to Ms. Jaramillo, id. at 87, 110-12, 132-33, and leaving it in place for several hours until Ms. Herrera could take custody of it, id. at 112, 114-15.

Throughout the interrogation, Ms. Jaramillo attempted to contact Ms. Herrera to take possession of the car pursuant to Mr. Barraza's requests. Id. at 113-16. Officer Shultz later discovered that Mr. Barraza's sister was in Alamogordo, over three hour's drive from Albuquerque. Id. at 9, 17.

After this discussion with Mr. Barraza, Officer Shultz began conducting an inventory search. Doc. 67, US Closing Br., at 7. During the search, Officer Shultz found a shotgun and ammunition, whereupon another officer on the scene stated "this is why we just tow the cars." Ex. 3-7. After finding the shotgun, the Albuquerque Police Department continued the search until they believed they had found all of the high value items and completed a "Tow-Report" inventorying the high value property within the vehicle. Ex. 5.

ANALYSIS

I. "Standing"² to Contest the Seizure

A defendant can challenge a search under the Fourth Amendment if "the defendant manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched and [if] society is prepared to recognize that expectation as objectively reasonable." United States v. Eckart, 569 F.3d 1263, 1274 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). In cases where a defendant is not the registered owner of a vehicle, while he "need not submit legal documentation showing a chain of lawful custody from the registered owner to himself," he nonetheless "bears the burden of establishing that he gained possession from the owner or someone with authority to grant possession." United States v. Valdez-Hocker, 333 F.3d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 2003). The Tenth Circuit has articulated three factors that it believes are "important, though not determinative" in resolving whether a defendant has met his burden in such circumstances: "(1) whether the defendant asserted ownership over the items seized from the vehicle; (2) whether the defendant testified to his expectation of privacy at the suppression hearing; and (3) whether the defendant presented any testimony at the suppression hearing that he had a legitimate possessory interest in the vehicle." United States v. Allen, 235 F.3d 482, 489 (10th Cir. 2000). However, the Circuit has also "found the mere fact of presence in the car, or even possession of the car keys, insufficientto meet the defendant's burden of proving standing." Id. (citing United States v. Arango, 912 F.2d 441, 444 (10th Cir. 1990)).

The government argues in its supplemental brief that Mr. Barraza lacks standing to bring his claim. Doc. 60, Gov. Suppl. Mot., at 2. According to the government, to prove standing, Mr. Barraza must assert that he was in lawful possession of the Cadillac where the illegal firearm was found, and here, no standing exists because the car was not...