United States v. Luna
| Decision Date | 10 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:19-CR-2618 WJ,1:19-CR-2618 WJ |
| Citation | 485 F.Supp.3d 1308 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Vincent LUNA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Benjamin J. Christenson, US Attorney's Office, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant Vincent Luna's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements ("Motion") (Doc. 24 ). The Court, having reviewed the parties’ briefing and considered counsels’ oral arguments as well as the applicable law, finds that the Motion is not well-taken and is therefore DENIED.
This case arises out of an incident on April 5, 2019, involving Defendant and multiple members (collectively refenced as "deputies") of the Cibola County Sheriff's Office ("CCSO"). Defendant moves to suppress all evidence obtained from his property. He argues that law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest him and to conduct a subsequent "security sweep" of his property, which led to CCSO obtaining a search warrant, the fruits of which led to two additional search warrants. Additionally, Defendant argues that any of his post-arrest statements should be excluded on Miranda grounds.
The Court held a hearing on this matter on July 1, 2020. The Government called several current and former members of the CCSO. The witnesses called by Defendant were additional law enforcement officers. At that hearing, the following facts were established:
On April 5, 2019, members of CCSO were dispatched to Defendant's residence in reference to a possible stolen vehicle. The call came from an anonymous, never identified caller, who stated there was a stolen green, lifted, long bed Chevy truck at Defendant's home. (Tr. of Anonymous Call, Def.’s Ex. B). Four deputies initially went to the scene: Alan Roane, Julian Armijo, A. Romero, and Gabrielle Romero. When the deputies arrived, they approached the property from the public street and entered the property through an open gate. Defendant's property was partially, but not fully, surrounded by a metal chain link fence. Although parts of the fence had plastic slats/lattice through it, evidence presented at the hearing clearly showed that a person standing on the road could see through parts of the fence. (See Photo of Property, Gov's Ex. 7). Deputies observed a number of "stripped" vehicles on the property. From the street, deputies could also see a vehicle matching the description of the one in question.
Upon entering the property through the open gate, the deputies observed the mobile home, multiple vehicles, and a large carport (also referred to as a garage) which was solid on three sides with a solid roof. The front of the carport was open and facing the gate. Deputies also observed an unidentified male subject, who walked between the carport and mobile home and then out of sight of the deputies. None of the deputies ever saw where this male subject went. Deputies observed two additional male subjects in the carport, one of whom was Defendant. Deputies testified that it appeared that the men were doing some type of body work on the vehicle. Deputies made contact with Defendant, informing him that they were there on the report of a possible stolen vehicle. Upon hearing this, Defendant became agitated and asked the deputies to leave the property. Deputy Roane told Defendant that is was possible that there was a misunderstanding, and asked Defendant for permission to run the license plate. Defendant agreed. Deputy Roane contacted Cibola County dispatch and learned that the license plate displayed on the green Chevy truck did not correspond to that vehicle. Deputy Roane told Defendant what he had learned. Defendant became more agitated. Deputy Roane then asked for permission to run the vehicle identification number (VIN). Again, Defendant consented. The VIN came back to the vehicle which had been reported stolen. When deputies relayed this to Defendant, he told them that the truck had been dropped off by someone named Michael. Defendant told deputies he did not want a stolen truck on his property.
Deputy Armijo, in an effort to "deescalate" the situation, allowed Defendant to move the truck onto the street. Defendant asked to speak to a CCSO supervisor and if he could go into the home. Deputies summoned a supervisor, but would not allow Defendant to go into the mobile home because of the fact that they had at least one subject unaccounted for and they did not believe allowing Defendant into the home while waiting for a supervisor was safe. Eventually Undersheriff Munk responded to the scene. Shortly after Undersheriff Munk arrived, he observed movement from within the mobile home, but was not sure who it was. Defendant told Undersheriff Munk that he had bought the Chevy truck for $200 from a man in Albuquerque, a story which Munk found implausible. Deputies informed Defendant he was being detained and attempted to handcuff him. Defendant became combative, eventually fighting with deputies, who in turn deployed a Taser. Defendant was subdued, arrested, and transported from the scene.
Defendant's girlfriend, Angelica Munoz, also became involved in the altercation. Undersheriff Munk testified that during the fight Munoz grabbed Undersheriff Munk and pulled him off the Defendant. Munoz was arrested for battery on a police officer. Before being transported from the scene, Munoz asked to use the bathroom. Lieutenant Monte and Deputy G. Romero escorted her inside and allowed her to use the master bathroom. In a video exhibit prepared by Defense Counsel's investigator, it was clear that the entrance to the master suite, which includes a bedroom and a bathroom, was located immediately to the right of the front door, which opens into a living room. (Def.’s Ex. F). The video showed that it was not possible to see the entirety of the mobile home from the front door or the door to the master bedroom. Lieutenant Monte testified that neither she nor Deputy G. Romero went into any other part of the mobile home while they waited for Munoz to use the bathroom.
Deputies then performed a "protective sweep" (sometimes called a "security sweep") of Defendant's mobile home. Deputies explained that there was still one unaccounted for male subject and they did not know whether there were any others on the property on in the mobile home. Deputy Armijo testified that, during the sweep, he observed numerous titles and other vehicle documentation, as well as a card audio amplifier, inside the home. Deputy Armijo testified that these items appeared consistent with stripping or altering of stolen vehicles. Deputy Armijo then completed the affidavit for search warrant.
Upon receiving the warrant and during the initial search, deputies searched the carport and other outdoor areas of the property and discovered another stolen vehicle, an empty ammunition magazine, and a rifle. The search was stopped so that another warrant for weapons could be obtained since at this point in time, deputies knew Defendant was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from possessing firearms. After obtaining the second warrant, deputies continued the search, eventually locating a clear, crystal-like substance which appeared to be methamphetamine. Again, the search was stopped so that a third search warrant could be obtained.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals and their property from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. See United States v. Ibarra , 955 F.2d 1405, 1409 (10th Cir. 1992). "The ordinary remedy in a criminal case for violation of the Fourth Amendment is suppression of any evidence obtained during the illegal police conduct." United States v. Olivares-Rangel , 458 F.3d 1104, 1108 (10th Cir. 2006). "The Supreme Court has ... reiterated, however, that suppression of evidence should be a last resort, not a first impulse." United States v. Sells , 463 F.3d 1148, 1154 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Hudson v. Michigan , 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) ) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).
"On a motion to suppress, the district court must assess the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight to give to the evidence presented; the inferences the district court draws from that evidence and testimony are entirely within its discretion." United States v. Goebel , 959 F.3d 1259, 1265 (10th Cir. 2020). "The defendant has the burden of showing the Fourth Amendment was implicated, while the government has the burden of proving its warrantless actions were justified. Id. (internal citations omitted)
Defendant raises five principle arguments in support of his Motion. The Court addresses each in turn.
Defendant's first argument is that the deputies’ entry onto his property was unlawful. "[T]he warrantless entry of the home is the chief evil against which the Fourth Amendment is directed." United States v. Lowe , 999 F.2d 448, 451 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. United States District Court , 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752, (1972) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).
It is well-settled law that "searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional." United States v. Dupree , 540 F. App'x 884, 890 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart , 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In addition to the home itself, the Fourth Amendment protects the "curtilage" of the home. United States v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294, 300, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987). What constitutes "curtilage" is informed by a number of factors, the central question of which is "whether the area harbors the intimate activity associated with...
To continue reading
Request your trial