United States v. Molina-Isidoro
Decision Date | 07 October 2016 |
Docket Number | EP–16–CR–1402–PRM |
Citation | 267 F.Supp.3d 900 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Maria Isabel MOLINA–ISIDORO, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Robert Jerome White, United States Attorney's Office, El Paso, TX, for United States of America.
Louis E. Lopez, Jr., Attorney at Law, El Paso, TX, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
On this day, the Court considered Defendant Maria Isabel Molina–Isidoro's ("Molina") "Motion to Suppress and Memorandum in Support" (ECF No. 16) [hereinafter "Motion"], filed on September 2, 2016; the United States' (the "Government") "Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress" (ECF No. 17) [hereinafter "Response"], filed on September 2, 2016; and the parties' "Joint Stipulation of Facts" (ECF No. 21) [hereinafter "Joint Stipulation"], filed on September 21, 2016, in the above-captioned cause. In her Motion, Molina asks the Court to "suppress and exclude from the Government's case-in-chief, any and all evidence obtained as a result of a search of her cell phone," which was conducted at the border. Mot. 1.
The facts surrounding the search of Molina's cell phone, and for the purpose of adjudicating her Motion, are undisputed, set forth in the parties' Joint Stipulation, and recounted verbatim below.1 After reviewing the Joint Stipulation and arguments proffered by the parties, the Court is of the opinion that Molina's Motion should be denied for the reasons that follow.
The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons ... and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "As the text makes clear, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness." Riley v. California , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2482, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Supreme Court has determined that "where a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing ... reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant." Id. (quoting Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) ). "In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement." Id. ; see also United States v. Pickett, 598 F.3d 231, 234 (5th Cir. 2010).
"The border search is one such exception, and it has a ‘history as old as the fourth amendment itself.’ " Pickett, 598 F.3d at 234 (quoting United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 619, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977) ); see also United States v. Newell, 506 F.2d 401, 404 (5th Cir. 1975) (). Supreme Court jurisprudence on this border search exception demonstrates that it is predicated upon "[t]he Government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects," which "is at its zenith at the international border." United States v. Flores–Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152, 124 S.Ct. 1582, 158 L.Ed.2d 311 (2004).
"Congress, since the beginning of our Government, ‘has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country.’ " Id. (quoting United States v. Montoya de Hernandez , 473 U.S. 531, 537, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985) ). "Historically, such broad powers have been necessary to prevent smuggling and to prevent prohibited articles from entry." Ramsey , 431 U.S. at 619, 97 S.Ct. 1972. "Time and again, [the Supreme Court has stated] that searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border." Flores–Montano , 541 U.S. at 152–53, 124 S.Ct. 1582. This is because there is a "longstanding concern for the protection of the integrity of the border." Montoya de Hernandez , 473 U.S. at 538, 105 S.Ct. 3304. In sum, "[i]t is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity." Flores–Montano , 541 U.S. at 153, 124 S.Ct. 1582.
"Balanced against the sovereign's interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of [an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alasaad v. Nielsen
...significant than the government's interest in directly discovering the items to be exported illegally"); United States v. Molina-Isidoro, 267 F. Supp. 3d 900, 909 n.10 (W.D. Tex. 2016). Defendants argue that devices "can contain contraband (such as child pornography), information regarding ......