United States v. Flores-Lagonas

• Decision Date: 02 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-3108,19-3108
• Citation: 993 F.3d 550
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Adan Margritos FLORES-LAGONAS, Defendant - Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

993 F.3d 550

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee

v.Adan Margritos FLORES-LAGONAS, Defendant - Appellant

No. 19-3108

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 23, 2020

Filed: April 2, 2021

Craig Raymond Baune, Katharine Thornton Buzicky, Thomas Calhoun-Lopez, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, Lisa D. Kirkpatrick, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Saint Paul, MN, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

Adan Margritos Flores-Lagonas, Pro Se.

Thomas Anthony Hagler, Saint Paul, MN, for Defendant - Appellant.

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Adan Margritos Flores-Lagonas pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in June 2019. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Law enforcement was investigating a drug trafficking operation when Flores-Lagonas fled the scene of a controlled delivery. Officers then arrested and searched him. Evidence obtained in the search implicated him in the drug trafficking. Flores-Lagonas was indicted in July 2015. Nearly four years elapsed between his indictment and his conditional guilty plea.

Flores-Lagonas moved to suppress evidence obtained in the search on Fourth Amendment grounds, moved to dismiss the indictment for alleged police perjury, and moved to dismiss the indictment for Sixth Amendment and Speedy Trial Act violations. The district court¹ denied each motion. On appeal, Flores-Lagonas argues that the district court (1) erred in concluding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation, (2) erred in denying his motion to dismiss for police perjury, and (3) erred in concluding that there was no Sixth Amendment or Speedy Trial Act violation. We affirm.

I. Background

Flores-Lagonas directed an individual to meet him and deliver methamphetamine. Flores-Lagonas did not know, however, that the individual was a cooperating individual (CI). On May 13, 2015, police set up a controlled delivery between Flores-Lagonas and the CI in a shopping center parking lot in Rochester, Minnesota.² The CI, under police surveillance, was to deliver four kilograms of methamphetamine to Flores-Lagonas. When the delivery time neared, Flores-Lagonas arrived in the parking lot by car, accompanied by Perez-Juarez and another passenger.

Law enforcement stationed surveillance units in various places around the parking lot. Officer Brian Green and three other law enforcement officers were positioned around the corner from the parking lot in an unmarked squad vehicle. The officers in that vehicle could not see the parking lot, but they received information from the surveillance officers via phone and radio. Sergeant James Schueller and another officer were stationed in the parking lot in an unmarked Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Surveillance officers observed Flores-Lagonas and Perez-Juarez exiting a blue Chrysler Pacifica and entering a Target store. Inside Target, Flores-Lagonas gave Perez-Juarez a cell phone. Perez-Juarez used the phone to communicate with the CI. Perez-Juarez and the CI coordinated a meeting in the parking lot

While Perez-Juarez approached the CI's car by foot, surveillance officers observed Flores-Lagonas returning to the Pacifica. After getting into the car, he drove slowly around the parking lot before parking across from where the CI and Perez-Juarez were meeting. A police surveillance camera began capturing the incident at this point.³ Perez-Juarez then left the CI and walked back towards the Pacifica.

Before Perez-Juarez reached the Pacifica, Officer Green and his team received instructions to arrest Flores-Lagonas and his passenger. The officers pulled up to the Pacifica in the unmarked squad car and emerged in unison with their weapons drawn.⁴ In the meantime, Sergeant Schueller had driven the Jeep towards the other side of the Pacifica to block its path. Officer Green later testified that he was wearing a marked tactical vest with the word "Police" written across the front. Sergeant Schueller testified that at least two of the officers were wearing marked tactical vests.⁵ Both Officer Green and Sergeant Schueller testified that the officers who emerged from the unmarked car loudly identified themselves as law enforcement.⁶

Seeing the officers approach, Flores-Lagonas attempted to flee in the Pacifica. On his way out of the parking lot, his vehicle struck Sergeant Schueller's Jeep. A car chase ensued. Several officers, including Sergeant Schueller, pursued the Pacifica. Sergeant Schueller testified that he turned on his hazard lights, sounded his horn, and activated emergency police lights as he pursued Flores-Lagonas. He also testified that Flores-Lagonas accelerated to 90 miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone and that he saw Flores-Lagonas discard what appeared to be "white powder" out of the car window. Id. at 45. Flores-Lagonas eventually lost control of his car, which skidded off the road and into a field. Sergeant Schueller and his partner got out of their vehicle, drew their weapons, and yelled commands as they approached the Pacifica.⁷ Flores-Lagonas then exited the Pacifica and began to run across the field. Sergeant Schueller pursued Flores-Lagonas by foot and ultimately apprehended him.

After other officers arrived on the scene, Sergeant Schueller conducted a pat-down of Flores-Lagonas and found two loaded handgun magazines. The other officers searched the Pacifica and recovered a handgun and another loaded magazine by the driver's seat. Flores-Lagonas, who was a convicted felon at the time, admitted to possessing the gun.

Flores-Lagonas was indicted on July 14, 2015, for conspiracy to distribute and intent to possess methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 ; being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) ; being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) ; and carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Nearly four years later, on June 4, 2019, Flores-Lagonas pleaded guilty. Because of the lengthy procedural background in this case, we recite only the dates and events most relevant to this appeal.

Flores-Lagonas moved to suppress the evidence found in his car, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop, arrest, and search him. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 14, 2015. Officer Green and Sergeant Schueller testified. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation ("report"), recommending the denial of the motion to suppress. The magistrate judge concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Flores-Lagonas in the parking lot but noted that the Pacifica did not actually stop. The magistrate judge also concluded that even in the absence of reasonable suspicion for the initial stop, the officers eventually had probable cause to arrest Flores-Lagonas on multiple grounds, including his "attempt to flee from law enforcement and subsequent traffic violations." United States v. Flores-Lagonas , No. 0:15-cr-00210-MJD-DTS, 2015 WL 9313516, at *5 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2015), report and recommendation adopted , 0:15-cr-00210-MJD-DTS, 2015 WL 9294288 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2015). The district court adopted the report in its entirety and denied the motion to suppress.

Between August 2015 and January 2016, Flores-Lagonas's attorney moved for several continuances for personal exigencies.⁸ The court granted the motions and excluded the relevant time under the Speedy Trial Act ("Act").⁹

On February 1, 2016, the government filed a superceding indictment adding three new co-defendants: Nicole Angela Davis, Epifanio Salgado Flores, and Felix Nacedo Flores. One month later, Flores-Lagonas filed a pretrial motion for severance. Salgado Flores was the last of the new co-defendants to make his initial appearance; he appeared on March 29, 2016. The government and Salgado Flores filed various pretrial motions in April 2016. Flores-Lagonas withdrew his motion for severance in early May 2016. On May 4, 2016, the government moved to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act. Flores-Lagonas did not object. As of that date, the pretrial motions filed by the government and Salgado Flores were still pending. The district court granted the motion on May 13, 2016, and excluded the time from February 1, 2016, through May 13, 2016, from the calculation of the Act's seventy-day trial deadline.

Salgado Flores's pretrial motions were still pending when he pleaded guilty on June 6, 2016. The government and Flores-Lagonas filed motions in limine on June 6, 2016, and June 7, 2016, respectively. The district court ruled on those motions on June 17, 2016.

Trial was set to begin on June 20, 2016. That morning, however, the district court granted Flores-Lagonas's motion for a competency evaluation after Flores-Lagonas "failed to respond to the [c]ourt's comments and spoke incoherently about the jurisdiction of the [c]ourt." Order Granting Def.’s Mot. Psych. Eval. at 1, United States v. Flores-Lagonas , No. 0:15-cr-00210-MJD-DTS (D. Minn. 2019), ECF No. 302. Flores-Lagonas's counsel had "represent[ed] that he [was] unable to communicate with [Flores-Lagonas] based on [Flores-Lagonas's] increasing insistence on only discussing incoherent jurisdictional issues."¹⁰ Id. at 1–2.

Flores-Lagonas went through multiple competency proceedings over the next year and a half. The magistrate judge twice found him incompetent to stand trial. Each time, he was committed to the custody of the Attorney General to restore his competency. On December 4, 2018, after a third competency proceeding, the magistrate judge determined that Flores-Lagonas was mentally competent to stand trial.

Over the course of his competency proceedings, Flores-Lagonas requested and was appointed new counsel. His new attorney moved to dismiss the superceding indictment, arguing that the...