United States v. Carrizales
| Decision Date | 02 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION H-20-00161 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JESUS LEONARDO ESQUIVEL CARRIZALES in custody |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Pending before the court is a motion to suppress evidence filed by defendant Jesus Leonardo Esquivel-Carrizales ("Esquivel"). Dkt. 34. The United States of America (the "Government") filed a response, and Esquivel replied. Dkts. 37, 42. On June 24, 2020, the court held a hearing on the motion. Dkt. 67. At the hearing, the parties agreed to submit post-hearing briefs. See Dkt. 63. The parties agreed to a briefing schedule (Dkt. 70), and Esquivel filed a supplemental brief on September 8, 2020 (Dkt. 71), the Government responded on September 28, 2020 (Dkt. 72), and Esquivel replied on October 9, 2020 (Dkt. 73). After considering all of this briefing, the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motion to suppress should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
On March 12, 2020, Esquivel, along with his co-defendant Jose Santos-Esquivel ("Santos"), was indicted for the federal offenses of (1) conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance; and (2) possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.1 Dkt. 1. In his original motion to suppress, he sought to suppress (1) "the currency, and any other evidence (including statements), and any fruits thereof, that were allegedly obtained following his seizure and search of a vehicle in which he was traveling in Mississippi . . . on May 17, 2018"; and (2) "the controlled substances, firearms, currency, and any other evidence (including statements), and fruits thereof, that were allegedly obtained following his seizure and the search of a vehicle in which he was traveling . . . on December 20, 2018," asserting that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Dkt. 34. He also moves to suppress "any custodial statements, and any testimonial fruits flowing from them, because they were made without him knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his rights under Miranda v. Arizona," in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Id.
The Government contended in its original response that (1) Esquivel was never arrested on May 17, 2018, and he denied ownership of the currency at issue; and (2) Esquivel was a passenger on December 20, 2018, and thus has no standing to challenge the search occurring on that date. Dkt. 37. Esquivel filed a reply in which he sought an evidentiary hearing and the opportunity to question the officers involved. Dkt. 42.
During the evidentiary hearing held on June 24, 2020, the following officers testified: Clifton (Gene) Dedeaux, K. Winter, L. Hall, P. Oliphant, A. Rodgers, and Deputy Sweeney. Dkts. 63 (Transcript), 67 (Minute Entry). The parties filed supplemental briefs pursuant to an agreed briefing schedule after the hearing. Dkts. 70 (briefing schedule), 71, 72, 73. The court willnow set forth the facts that were ascertained during the hearing along with the arguments in the supplemental briefs.
On May 17, 2018, Officer Clifton (Gene) Dedeaux was working for the D'Iberville Police Department, which is near Biloxi, Mississippi. Dkt. 63. He had worked as a police officer for over thirty years. Id. His title with the D'Iberville Police Department was and currently is Highway Criminal Interdiction Patrol, and he is on the High Intensity Drug Activity ("HIDA") Task Force. Id. He testified that the goal of the task force is "to interdict narcotics trafficking and bulk cash smuggling across the I-10 corridor." Id.
At approximately 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2018, Dedeaux was on I-10 and observed a Volkswagen Passat pass him heading westbound. Id. He testified that the car "had what I would say a paper tag on the back of it, that was unreadable, because the wind had - it was flopping up as it was going down the highway." Id. Dedeaux testified that Mississippi law requires tags be readable at all times.2 Id. Dedeaux stopped the vehicle and made contact with the driver from the passenger side of the vehicle; Dedeaux identified Esquivel as that driver of the Passat during the suppression hearing. Id.
During cross, it was pointed out that Dedeaux's report states that "a silver VW Passat [was] displaying a temp paper tag . . . [and Dedeaux] conducted a traffic stop . . . to verify the temp tag and the purchase of the vehicle." Id. Dedeaux testified that he "could not tell it was actually a temp tag until [he] got behind it," and when the car stopped, "the paper fell in place." Id. Hetestified that if he would have been able to run the numbers, he would not have had to pull the car over. Id. Dedeaux contends that he told Esquivel that he needed to go to the next exit and tape down the tag. Id. Dedeaux did not write that the tag was flailing in the wind or specify that he could not read it in his report, and his office was unable to recover dash camera video from that date by the time it was requested by the Government, as they do not retain the videos indefinitely. Id.
Dedeaux testified that when he made contact with Esquivel, Esquivel "was very nervous," "kind of squirming and his - and his arms and hands were shaking." Id. Dedeaux conceded that "people get nervous when they get pulled over by the police department," but "this gentleman was very nervous, over-nervous." Id. Dedeaux asserts that he first explained to Esquivel that he pulled him over because the tag was flopping and he could not read it.3 Id. He asked for Esquivel's license and registration of the vehicle for the proof of purchase. Id. The paperwork Esquivel initially handed Dedeaux was for a pickup. Id. According to Dedeaux, when he told Esquivel it was not the right paperwork, Esquivel "started panicking and looking, and went in the glove box, started pulling out paperwork . . . ." Id. Esquivel finally found papers for the Volkswagen Passat, but Esquivel's name was not on the documentation. Id. Dedeaux asked Esquivel if he owned the car, and, according to Dedeaux, Esquivel replied that it belonged to his friend who had let him borrow it to go to Atlanta, Georgia to visit his dad. Id. Dedeaux stated that he believed Esquivel told him the friend's name was Alonzo, and Dedeaux advised Esquivel that Alonzo's name was not on the paperwork either. Id. According to Dedeaux, Esquivel then said that it belonged to afriend of Alonzo's, whose name was on the paperwork. Id. Dedeaux testified that Esquivel did not know the name of the owner of the vehicle. Id. Dedeaux claims that he spoke to Esquivel in English, and Esquivel spoke to him in English.4 Id.
After obtaining the correct papers, Dedeaux went to confirm that the paperwork matched the VIN number on the paper tags and to run the tags to confirm that the vehicle was not stolen. Id. He also ran a check on Esquivel to make sure there were no warrants. Id. Dedeaux ran the check on Esquivel through the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) database. Id. Dedeaux testified that the EPIC search showed that the defendant "did have a past history of drugs." Id. Dedeaux further testified that this information, combined with Esquivel being so nervous, driving a third-party vehicle, not knowing the owner of the vehicle's name, not having luggage in the car despite saying he'd been traveling to Georgia, and fast-food wrappers on the front seat, gave him probable cause to believe there was a crime being committed in his presence. Id.
Dedeaux next approached the vehicle again, from the passenger side, and asked Esquivel to step to the rear of the vehicle, which Esquivel did. Id. Dedeaux stated that he read a consent form to Esquivel, or asked Esquivel to read it, and asked Esquivel if he would consent to a search of the vehicle.5 Id. Dedeaux asserted that Esquivel said he understood the consent form and signed the consent form, thus giving consent to search. Id. Dedeaux did not recall if the form was in English or Spanish, but he did recall asking Esquivel if he understood it and Esquivel replying in the affirmative. Id. According to Dedeaux, the consent form states that the person whose car isbeing searched has the right to refuse and the right at any time to stop the search. Id. Dedeaux testified that he no longer had the consent form that Esquivel signed because he turned the consent form and all records over to the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA"). Id. Dedeaux placed Esquivel in the passenger side of his police vehicle during the search of the Passat "for officer safety." Id. Dedeaux states that the door of the police vehicle was unlocked. Id.
During the search, Dedeaux found an aftermarket compartment, and there were bundles of currency in the compartment. Id. He then advised his dispatch that he had located currency and asked them to contact DEA Agent Winters and Border Patrol Agent Levi Hall. Id. Dedeaux then went to Esquivel and explained that he had found currency in the car. Id. According to Dedeaux, Esquivel said he "knew nothing about the money being there." Id. Dedeaux explained that DEA and a Border Patrol agent were coming, placed handcuffs on Esquivel (in the front), shut the door, and got into the driver's seat of the car to wait.6 Id. When the other officers arrived, they determined it would be safer to finish searching the car at the police department as opposed to on the side of the highway. Id. So, another officer drove the Passat to the police station, and Esquivel was transported to the station in Dedeaux's police car. Id.
On the way to the police station, Dedeaux states that Esquivel asked why DEA was called, and Dedeaux told Esquivel that it was because the officer works cases for the D'Iberville Police Department and will need to provide a receipt to Esquivel if he seizes the currency. Id. Esquivel then allegedly shared some information about his family's past that raised...
To continue reading
Request your trial