United States v. Madrid-Quezada

• Decision Date: 23 July 2019
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 18-222 MV
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Julian MADRID-QUEZADA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

403 F.Supp.3d 1016

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Julian MADRID-QUEZADA, Defendant.

Crim. No. 18-222 MV

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Signed July 23, 2019

Alejandro Fernandez, Attorney for Mr. Madrid-Quezada.

Jason Wisecup, Assistant United States Attorney.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARTHA VÁZQUEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Julian Madrid-Quezada's Motion to Suppress Statements and Tangible Evidence, filed November 1, 2018. Doc. 45. The government filed a Response on November 15, 2018. Doc. 46. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on May 8, 2019. Having reviewed the briefs, testimony, exhibits, and relevant law, for the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Mr. Madrid-Quezada's Motion to Suppress.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case concerns Julian Madrid-Quezada's oral and written statements made on February 16, 2017, on the day of his arrest, as well as during a 2000 administrative encounter. On January 23, 2018, Mr. Madrid-Quezada was charged in a single-count Indictment with Reentry of a Removed Alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b). Doc. 27. On November 1, 2018, he filed the instant Motion to Suppress, arguing that his oral and written statements, as well as the contents in his "Alien File" (A-File) should be suppressed because they were made after an illegal arrest and without proper advisement of his Miranda rights. Doc. 45. Mr. Madrid-Quezada additionally argued that the 2000 statements should be suppressed because he was not given Miranda warnings nor advised of the criminal implications of his statements at the time the statements were made in 2000. Doc. 45 at ¶ 12.

The government responded that Mr. Madrid-Quezada is not entitled to the suppression of any evidence because his rights were not violated in the 2000 administrative encounter, nor were they violated in the 2017 administrative encounter or criminal custodial interview, the latter of which was preceded by sufficient Miranda warnings. Doc. 46 at 6.

The Court held an evidentiary hearing on May 8, 2019, during which it heard testimony from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Deportation Officer (DO) Dean King and Mr. Madrid-Quezada. The Court took the Motion under advisement. The following represents the Court's essential findings of fact, based on the evidence submitted, as well as witness testimony, as required by Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 16, 2017, Julian Madrid-Quezada was encountered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents at his residence in Albuquerque, New Mexico as a part of a targeted enforcement action. [Complaint Doc. 1 (Affidavit of Deportation Officer Dean King) ]. Mr. Madrid-Quezada had been previously removed from the United States on August 17, 2000 and has convictions for alcohol-related conduct in 1999 and 2006, for which he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Id. ; see also Doc. 46-2 (I-867A Form (Recorded Sworn Statement) dated 8/17/00). As a result of this history, ICE was "made aware of his presence by receiving a lead referral from one of [its] analysis targeting divisions." Hearing Transcript (Tr.)¹ at 5:14–15. The National Criminal Analysis and Targeting Center Lead Referral (Lead Referral), dated November 10, 2015 [Doc. 46-1], led to Mr. Madrid-Quezada's arrest in the instant offense.

ICE Deportation Officer Dean King, now a Supervisory Detention Deportation Officer, was a Deportation Officer for five years and has been employed with Homeland Security since 2003. Tr. at 4:12–25. DO King testified that ICE typically takes the lead referral and "further investigate[s] to try to confirm whether or not that's the same person ... it's a targeted enforcement action at that point." Tr. at 5:23–25. He noted that lead referrals "could be" for individuals who do have status in the United States, which is something that the officers have to figure out whenever they receive the referral. Tr. at 56:12–22. In this case, the lead referral was dated 2015, but DO King did not receive it "until before the operation." Tr. at 59:8–20. He estimated receiving it three or four days prior to the operation. Tr. at 67:18–20.

DO King also indicated that as soon as an officer gets a "lead," referring to the Lead Referral, he or she "immediately ... [orders] the A-File." Tr. at 12:12–13. In this case, ICE "had an operation we were getting ready to conduct" and "didn't have a lot of time ... to do a lot of, you know, surveillance or investigation." Tr. at 6:17–20. DO King reported that there was not time in this case to "go out and try to confirm whether or not" an individual is "really here" because ICE "had to get so many targets acquired and identified and presented to headquarters ... then we have so many days." Tr. at 29:6–19. DO King was not "really able to do a lot of pre-investigation beforehand," and could not recall how they came to search one—rather than a second, separately listed—address for Mr. Madrid-Quezada. Tr. at 29:20–21, 32:7–10. Regardless, Mr. Madrid-Quezada was a "viable target" who "became part of the operation," which DO King described as a "targeted enforcement action." Tr. at 5:25, 6:23, 30:7. The operation lasted three or four days and involved the arrest of multiple people, "all targeting previously removed felons and [aggravated] felons." Tr. 24:17–25:9, 26:23–25. As an individual with prior convictions, Mr. Madrid-Quezada was listed on the Lead Referral as an "Enforcement Priority: 1." Tr. at 31:1–10; Doc. 46-1. He was "added last minute," though it was not clarified whether Mr. Madrid-Quezada was picked up on the first day of the operation, the last, or somewhere in between. Tr. at 54:11.

At the time of the instant offense, DO King was within the Fugitive Operations team under the Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Unit. Tr. 26:11–15. ERO regularly initiates criminal prosecution, and DO King stated that he intended on the day of the instant offense to initiate a prosecution in this case. Tr. at 27:9–14. On the other hand, he also stated that while Mr. Madrid-Quezada may have been suspected of being in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. section 1326, "it wasn't 100 percent conclusive." Tr. at 30:22–25. He provided the following testimony in response to defense counsel's questions:

Q: When you say that the lead referral doesn't always indicate an intent to arrest for criminal prosecution, when they're Enforcement Priority 1, you'd agree that it's more likely it's going to be a criminal --

A: It's a possibility. But, again, sometimes -- if -- depending on the case, sometimes we have time to prepare a criminal case and get it ready before we will make an arrest. In this case, if I would have -- if we would have had time, I could have -- when I went to the Defendant's residence, I would have had an arrest warrant, a criminal arrest warrant, versus what I -- than what we had. But in this case, we weren't 100 percent sure that we were going to go through the prosecution of 1326 until after the arrest.

But, typically, it's unknown to the officers usually if we can foresee a criminal prosecution or not. It depends on the case. It's varied case-by-case.

Q: But your testimony is had you more time, you may have sought a criminal arrest warrant?

A: Yes. I would have had enough probable cause to draft a criminal complaint and try to get a judge to sign a criminal arrest warrant based on the information I did have.

Tr. at 31:11–32:6. DO King reiterated later that "most likely" the individuals would be referred for 1326 prosecution, "but it's not always the case." Tr. at 63:25–64:3. He also stated that if he "would have had a little bit more information up front, I would have – definitely would have came and got an arrest warrant from the District Court in Albuquerque. That way this – you know, we would have went a totally different route." Tr. at 64:5–9. However, because of the time limit, the "criminal initiation was done after the administrative warrant." Tr. at 64:12–13. DO King admitted, "I would have had a criminal arrest warrant ... we would have – things would have been done differently. Upon encounter, obviously, he would have been Mirandized on the spot." Tr. at 64:16–19. He reiterated several times thereafter that "we could have done a lot more research" if he would have had more time. Tr. at 67:21–24. DO King estimated that he would have needed "a good week or two" to research "all the facts upfront" and "obtain[ ] a criminal arrest warrant." Tr. at 67:25–68:12. When asked by the Court to clarify what he needed to do, DO King stated that he would have verified the residence and "make sure that ... the person is the same person who was prior removed." Tr. at 68:17–24. DO King then stated that he did not believe he had probable cause for a criminal arrest when he initially encountered Mr. Madrid-Quezada. Tr. at 69:6–13.

DO King did receive an administrative warrant to detain or remove Mr. Madrid-Quezada. Doc. 46 at ¶ 13, 46-3 (Ex. 3, I-205 Warrant of Removal/Deportation); Tr. at 7:3–4, 17:13–15. The warrant is dated February 16, 2017, and signed by the ICE Field Officer Director on February 17, 2017, the day after Mr. Madrid-Quezada was arrested and interviewed. See Doc. 46-3. There is no judicial branch officer, magistrate, or judge involved in the process. Tr. at 24:5–7. The administrative warrant is not an arrest warrant, and it would not allow DO King to enter Mr. Madrid-Quezada's home to arrest him. Doc. 46 at ¶ 16; Tr. at 19:4–5. There is no time stamp on the administrative warrant, but it was obtained the same day that Mr. Madrid-Quezada was taken into custody at his home. Tr. at 20:23–21:10. DO King's report indicates that the operation began at 10:00 a.m. on February 16, 2017. Tr. 21:13–20. However, Mr. Madrid-Quezada estimated that the officers were at his home at approximately 6:30 a.m. Tr. at 72:7–11. DO King testified...