United States v. Morell-Oneill

• Decision Date: 16 September 2020
• Docket Number: Criminal No. 18-10467-LTS
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ANGEL JAVIER MORELL-ONEILL, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ANGEL JAVIER MORELL-ONEILL, Defendant.

Criminal No. 18-10467-LTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

September 16, 2020

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS (DOC. NO. 76)

SOROKIN, J.

Defendant Angel Javier Morell-Oneill was indicted by a grand jury on July 31, 2019 for possession of more than 400 grams of fentanyl with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(vi), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), unlawful reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Doc. No. 27.¹ Morell-Oneill has moved to suppress various statements he made following his arrest, Doc. No. 76 at 12, various statements made by Sussy Soto-Medina, id., drugs and a firearm recovered pursuant to a search warrant from Apartment 201 in which Soto-Medina lived, id. at 27, and evidence gathered from seven cellphones, pursuant to another search warrant, id. at 32. The Government has opposed. Doc. No. 83. For the reasons which follow, Morell-Oneill's motion is DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court DENIES suppression of any statements given by Soto-Medina, the evidence found in Apartment201, and the evidence found on the seven cellphones. The Court reserves judgment on whether to suppress Morell-Oneill's own statements because disputed issues of fact bear on both whether Morell-Oneill received Miranda warnings and whether his statements were voluntary. An evidentiary hearing will be held on October 7^th, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.

I. THE ARREST

Morell-Oneill was arrested on October 22, 2018 as the result of a months' long investigation into his involvement in drug trafficking. Doc. No. 76 at 2. The Government alleges that prior to the day of Morell-Oneill's arrest he sold fentanyl to a Confidential Source ("CS") on two separate occasions. Doc. No. 84-3 ¶ 10. Both transactions were video- and audio-recorded. Id. ¶¶ 12, 16. The Government further alleges that for each of these two prior transactions, Morell-Oneill left his apparent residence in Building 140, located at 142 Pleasant Valley Street, Methuen, Massachusetts, and proceeded to the pre-arranged meeting point where he sold drugs to the CS. Doc. No. 84-3 ¶ 13, 17.

Morell-Oneill arranged a third drug transaction with the CS for October 22, 2018, the day of his arrest, in a communication monitored by government agents. Id. ¶ 20. On that day, he was observed once again leaving from Building 140, this time carrying a white shopping bag, before getting into a vehicle and driving towards the meeting point. Id. During the drive, Morell-Oneill was stopped by Massachusetts State Police, who placed him under arrest. There is a factual dispute over whether Morell-Oneill was informed of his Miranda rights. Compare Doc. No. 80 ¶ 5 (Morell-Oneill's affidavit stating he was not read his rights) with Doc. No. 84-1 ¶ 5 (agent's affidavit stating that Morell-Oneill was read his rights). A subsequent search of the vehicle Morell-Oneill was driving at the scene of the arrest uncovered two kilograms of a substance, which tested positive for fentanyl, in the white shopping bag he was seen carrying earlier. Doc.No. 84-3 ¶ 21. The search also uncovered seven cellphones. Doc. No. 76 at 32. Morell-Oneill does not challenge the legality of the stop or of his arrest, nor does he seek to suppress the evidence seized from the vehicle. See generally Doc. No. 76.

II. THE INITIAL APARTMENT SEARCH & MORELL-ONEILL'S STATEMENTS

Following the arrest, government agents seized Morell-Oneill's keys and proceeded to 142 Pleasant Valley Street. The keys included both a key to Building 140 and a key to Apartment 201 within that building, which is leased in the name of Morell-Oneill's girlfriend or wife, Soto-Medina. Doc. No. 84 ¶ 15. The agents went to the building's leasing office, where they confirmed that Soto-Medina resided in Apartment 201. Id. ¶ 25. The government asserts that the agents recovered two keys from the leasing office, one for Building 140's outer door and one for Apartment 201. Doc. No. 83 at 4. The agents then entered Building 140 using a key, knocked on the door of Apartment 201, and used Morell-Oneill's key to enter the apartment. Id.

Once inside, the agents conducted a sweep of the apartment and remained there until a search warrant was secured some amount of time later. Id. The agents are alleged to have taken photos of the exterior of a closet in which a cache of drugs and a firearm were later found, and to have sent these photos by cellphone to an officer at the scene of Morell-Oneill's arrest, who showed the photos to Morell-Oneill. Doc. No. 76 at 3. Agents allegedly told Morell-Oneill that they were going to conduct a full search of the apartment and threatened to arrest Soto-Medina for whatever contraband they later found in the apartment unless Morell-Oneill confessed. Id.; see also Doc. No. 80 ¶ 7.

Following this, Morell-Oneill made various statements to the agents, to the effect that:

• The drugs discovered in his possession at the time of his arrest were, in fact, his;

• Soto-Medina was indeed the person the agents discovered in Apartment 201, and that she had nothing to do with the drugs located therein;

• Drugs were present in the apartment and could be located in a black duffle bag on the floor of the closet, and;

• A handgun, which he had purchased, could also be found at the same location. Doc. No. 76 at 3-4.

Morell-Oneill raises two arguments for suppressing these statements, one rooted in the Fifth Amendment and one rooted in the Fourth Amendment.

a. Fifth Amendment Analysis

Morell-Oneill argues his statements should be suppressed because he was not read his Miranda rights prior to being questioned and because the circumstances surrounding his questioning were sufficiently coercive to render his statements involuntary. Id. at 27-32.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the use of compelled testimony by the prosecution in its case in chief. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 306 (1985). The use of physical threats or violence is one way in which government agents may secure involuntary statements, but it is not the only way. See Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 440 (1961) ("[T]he blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.") (alteration in original) (quoting Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206 (1960)). "The question in each case is whether a defendant's will was overborne at the time he confessed." Id. at 440 (citation omitted).

The Miranda doctrine stems from this rule but itself provides an independent basis for suppression. The doctrine generally requires this Court to suppress any "statements obtainedthrough custodial interrogation unless the police officer informed the suspect of his right to remain silent and to consult an attorney." United States v. Byram, 145 F.3d 405, 409 (1st Cir. 1998) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1966)). For statements to be suppressed under Miranda, the suspect must have been "in custody" at the time the statement was made² and officers must have failed to inform the suspect of their "Miranda rights." Id. at 406.

The Court finds that there is a factual dispute regarding whether Morell-Oneill was read his Miranda rights and whether his statements were voluntarily. The government has provided an affidavit stating that he was read his rights, while Morell-Oneill has averred he was not. Compare Doc. No. 80 ¶ 5 (Morell-Oneill's affidavit stating he was not read his rights) with Doc. No. 84-1 ¶ 5 (agent's affidavit stating that he was). Morell-Oneill has also sworn that he was induced to make his confession by the officer's threats to arrest Soto-Medina and has argued that these threats overpowered his will. Doc. No. 76 at 30-31; Doc. No. 80 ¶ 8. Given this factual dispute, the Court will reserve judgment on the admissibility of Morell-Oneill's statements pending an evidentiary hearing.

b. Fourth Amendment Analysis

Morell-Oneill also argues that his statements should be suppressed, along with any statements given by Soto-Medina, because they are the fruit of an unconstitutional search of Soto-Medina's apartment. He claims that the agents' initial entry into Apartment 201 using his key was unconstitutional because it was conducted without a warrant and did not fall within any recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. See Doc. No. 76 at 8-11.Because his statements, and those of Soto-Medina, apparently flowed from this search, he claims they should be suppressed under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Id. at 8-11, 31-32.

The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend IV. Entry and search of the home by the government, without a warrant, is per se unreasonable unless the search is justified by exigent circumstances. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454 (1971). "There are generally four types of exigent circumstances: (1) hot pursuit of a fleeing felon into a residence; (2) imminent destruction of evidence within a residence; (3) a threatened and potentially successful escape by a suspect from inside the residence, or; (4) an imminent threat to the life or safety of the members of the public, the police officers, or a person located within the residence." United States v. Pena, 924 F. Supp. 1239, 1249 (1st Cir. 1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Courts must exclude any evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search, as well as any evidence that is "derivative of" a Fourth Amendment violation—"the so-called 'fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.'" Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2061 (2016) (citation omitted).

Even assuming that Morell-Oneill has...