United States v. Ramirez

• Decision Date: 25 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-10429,18-10429
• Citation: 976 F.3d 946
• Parties: UNITED STATES America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stefan RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

976 F.3d 946

UNITED STATES America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Stefan RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10429

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 12, 2019 San Francisco, California

Filed September 25, 2020

OPINION

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge:

This appeal concerns the Fourth Amendment's limits on the government's use of deceit when executing a valid search warrant. Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigating child pornography offenses obtained a warrant to search the residence of Stefan Ramirez and any vehicle registered to Ramirez located at or near the residence. Under the warrant and the law established by Michigan v. Summers , 452 U.S. 692, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981), the agents had no authority to seize Ramirez or search his car when they arrived to execute the warrant, because neither was at the residence. The agents manufactured the authority to seize them by falsely claiming to be police officers responding to a burglary to lure Ramirez home.

By luring Ramirez home, the agents’ successful deceit enabled them to obtain incriminating statements from Ramirez and evidence from his car and person. The district court denied Ramirez's motion to suppress the statements and evidence, and Ramirez thereafter pleaded guilty to receipt and distribution of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors. We hold that, under the particular facts of this case, the agents’ use of deceit to seize and search Ramirez violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the suppression order and remand for further proceedings.

I.

On November 30, 2016, while conducting an undercover investigation into the file-sharing of child pornography, an FBI agent located a network user sharing suspected child pornography files on a BitTorrent file-sharing network.¹ The FBI traced the internet protocol (IP) address used to share the files to an account registered to Stefan Ramirez at a specific address on Archie Avenue (the Archie Avenue residence). In total, the agent conducted 23 separate download sessions with the Archie Avenue IP address in November and December 2016, involving over 4,000 still images and 20 videos of suspected child pornography.

The FBI conducted surveillance on the Archie Avenue residence on four occasions in February, March, and May 2017. The FBI confirmed that there were no open wi-fi networks near the Archie Avenue residence; all available networks were secured with a password. The FBI also observed a white Chrysler sedan registered to Stefan Ramirez parked in the driveway. The agents knew from experience that computers and other electronic storage devices potentially storing child pornography are often kept in vehicles.

Based on the foregoing, the FBI asserted there was "probable cause to believe that an individual who resides at the [Archie Avenue] residence ... is involved in possession, receipt, and/or distribution of child pornography" and "probable cause to believe that evidence and instrumentalities of [such child pornography offenses] are located in the [Archie Avenue] residence."

The FBI, however, had not yet identified Ramirez as a suspect. Although the internet account was in Ramirez's name, several people were known to have lived at the Archie Avenue residence, any one of whom could have used Ramirez's computer to share the suspected child pornography. For example, Ramirez's mother owned the home, and a man named Andy Blanch lived there with his family at the time the FBI had the home under surveillance.

To further the investigation, Special Agent Joshua Ratzlaff applied for and obtained a warrant to search the Archie Avenue residence, including "[v]ehicles located at or near the premises that fall under the dominion and control of STEFAN RAMIREZ or any other occupant of the premises." Thus, though the warrant authorized the search of the house and car, it did not authorize the FBI to search or arrest Ramirez himself, and it permitted the FBI to search or seize Ramirez's car only if it was located "at or near the premises."

Agent Ratzlaff testified that the FBI hoped to speak to Ramirez when they executed the search warrant, as it was general FBI practice to interview the internet subscriber as part of the initial investigation. But Ramirez had left the house and was at work by 6:00 am that day, and the FBI did not arrive at the house until 9:20 am. In fact, no one was home, and the car was nowhere near. Instead of conducting the authorized search at that point, Agent Ratzlaff concocted a ruse to lure Ramirez home: he would call Ramirez at work, claim to be a police officer investigating a burglary at the residence, and tell Ramirez he needed to return home to confirm what was taken.

Ramirez did not answer when Agent Ratzlaff first called, so the agent called one of the other known residents, Andy Blanch, and informed him of the fictional break-in. The agents, in their fictional roles as investigating police, first asked Blanch to come to the house, but Blanch informed the agents that he and his family had moved out about three weeks earlier. The agents then asked Blanch to notify Ramirez of the break-in. Blanch complied and left a message on Ramirez's voicemail. He also independently asked Ramirez's mother to go to the residence to assist the agents. When Blanch reported back to the agents, Agent Ratzlaff concluded that Blanch likely was not involved in the child pornography offenses, and so he came clean about the true nature of their investigation. Blanch told Agent Ratzlaff that "it was possible his fifteen-year-old stepson was involved."

Once Ramirez's mother arrived at the Archie Avenue residence, Agent Ratzlaff explained that he was not responding to a burglary but executing a search warrant in furtherance of a child pornography investigation. Ms. Ramirez unlocked the door to allow the agents to conduct their search. Agent Ratzlaff then asked Ms. Ramirez to call her son and to continue the ruse about the burglary so that he would return home.² Ramirez promptly began driving home after his mother informed him of the burglary, returning the missed call from the FBI on the way. Agent Ratzlaff again identified himself as a police officer, told Ramirez there had been a burglary at his home, and said that they should wait until Ramirez arrived to discuss the matter further.

The FBI wore jackets marked "Police" (rather than FBI) and staged a Fresno police car in front of the home to elaborate upon their ruse. The agents were armed and wore full body armor. It was not until Ramirez parked his car and approached the agents that Agent Ratzlaff finally revealed the true purpose of their investigation, explaining that he had used the ruse to induce Ramirez to come home and to speak to him about the FBI's child pornography investigation.

After Agent Ratzlaff revealed that he had fabricated the burglary, he asked Ramirez to put his hands behind his back, placed Ramirez in a finger hold, frisked his front pockets and waistband, and seized his phone, wallet, and keys. He then asked Ramirez if there was a private place where they could talk. Ramirez said yes, walked with Agent Ratzlaff into the house, and chose an empty bedroom. Ramirez's mother was in the house, but Agent Ratzlaff did not let Ramirez speak with her, saying that he needed to talk to Ramirez privately.

Agent Ratzlaff and one other agent sat across from Ramirez, with the second agent closest to the door. The agents removed their body armor but remained armed, and they kept the door closed for the entire forty-five-minute interview. Five other agents and two evidence technicians continued to search the house during the interview. The agents did not tell Ramirez that he was free to leave, although Agent Ratzlaff did inform him during the interview that he was not under arrest. By the end of the interview, Ramirez had confessed to viewing child pornography on his laptop. The agents did not return Ramirez's phone, wallet, or keys until after the interview. During this time, agents also searched Ramirez's car and seized two laptops and two hard drives.

Ramirez filed a motion to suppress, arguing in relevant part that the agents unlawfully used a ruse to create the authority to seize Ramirez and his car, and that his statements, his phone, and the electronic devices taken from his car were therefore all obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the FBI had lawfully used its ruse to lure Ramirez home. Pursuant to a conditional plea agreement that preserved his right to "appeal the order denying his motion to suppress evidence ... and any custodial sentence imposed as a result of his conviction," Ramirez then entered a guilty plea to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). He was sentenced to 151 months in prison followed by 60 months of supervised release.

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. "We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress de novo." United States v. Washington , 490 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 2007). "Whether an encounter between a defendant and an officer constitutes a seizure is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo." Id. "We review the trial court's factual findings, however, for clear error." Id.

III.

The agents in this case obtained the legal authority to detain Ramirez for officer safety and brought his vehicle within the scope of their search warrant by falsely claiming to be police officers investigating a burglary at Ramirez's home. Whether the district court erred by denying Ramirez's motion to suppress turns on whether the agents’ use of this ruse violated the Fourth Amendment.

A.

Our review is guided by the long-standing and fundamental constitutional requirement that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV ; see also United...