United States v. Razo-Quiroz

Decision Date20 June 2019
Docket NumberNo. 1:19-cr-00015-DAD-BAM,1:19-cr-00015-DAD-BAM
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
PartiesUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ERIK RAZO-QUIROZ, CONRADO VIRGEN-MENDOZA, MARIA LUISA MORENO, ANA LEYDI CERVANTES SANCHEZ, and ERASMO VILLEGAS-SUAREZ, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SEIZED AND SETTING GOVERNMENT MOTION FOR A PRETRIAL AUTHENTICATION FOR FURTHER HEARING

This matter is before the court on various pretrial motions. First, defendant Ana Leydi Cervantes Sanchez ("Cervantes Sanchez") has filed a motion to suppress her statements made on December 28, 2018 and December 29, 2018 based on an allegedly inadequate advisement of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) by law enforcement. (Doc. No. 292.) Second, defendant Cervantes Sanchez has also moved to suppress evidence seized pursuant to both state and federal search warrants. (Doc. No. 288.) Third, the United States has moved for a pretrial authentication of certain recordings, phone extractions, Facebook material, transcripts and other records. (Doc. No. 287.)

A hearing on these motions was held on May 6, 2019. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen Escobar, Michael Tierney, and Laura Withers appeared on behalf of the government. Attorney Barbara O'Neill appeared for defendant Erik Razo-Quiroz. Assistant Federal Defenders Megan Hopkins and Erin Snider appeared for defendant Conrado Virgen Mendoza. Attorney John Meyer appeared for defendant Cervantes Sanchez. Attorney Serita Rios appeared for defendant Erasmo Villegas-Suarez and for defendant Maria Luisa Moreno on behalf of attorney Willard Bakeman.

The nature of this criminal prosecution has been summarized in the court's prior order and need not be repeated here. (See Doc. No. 264 at 2-4.) Below, the court addresses each of the pending motions.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS

As noted, defendant Cervantes Sanchez moves to suppress her statements given on December 28, 2018 and December 29, 2018, on the grounds that law enforcement officers inadequately advised her of her Miranda rights. (Doc. No. 292.) On April 26, 2019, the government filed an opposition to that motion, arguing that the Miranda advisement given by Turlock Police Detective Frank Navarro ("Det. Navarro") on December 28, 2018 was sufficient. (Doc. No. 303 at 5-8.) The government also argues that even if the court were to find that Det. Navarro's Miranda advisement was defective, defendant Cervantes Sanchez's statements to Homeland Security Investigations Agent David Olaya made on December 29, 2018 are nonetheless admissible. (Id. at 8-13.) On May 3, 2019, defendant Cervantes Sanchez filed a reply in support of her motion to suppress the statements. (Doc. No. 310.)

A. Factual Background

The facts relevant to this motion are as follows.1 On December 28, 2018, defendant Cervantes Sanchez was arrested at her sister's residence and taken to the Turlock PoliceDepartment, where she was questioned by Det. Navarro, a native Spanish speaker. (See Doc. No. 303 at 2.) At the outset of the interrogation, Det. Navarro advised Cervantes Sanchez that he needed to read her Miranda rights to her and would later ask her if she understood them. (Id.) Det. Navarro then recited the Miranda warnings from memory and asked Cervantes Sanchez if she understood. (Id. at 2-3.) Defendant Cervantes Sanchez immediately indicated that she did not understand what he had said. (Id. at 3.) Det. Navarro then recited the Miranda warnings again from memory. (Id.) Cervantes Sanchez replied that she did not completely understand the warning. (Id.)2 Det. Navarro then repeated the Miranda warnings a third time, this time providing some additional explanation as to each of the individual advisements. (Id.) Det. Navarro then asked Cervantes Sanchez about her familiarity with the Miranda warnings. (Id.) Cervantes Sanchez replied that she had only been in this country for four years and when asked by Det. Navarro, said that she had not seen any movies in which the Miranda rights were read. (See Doc. No. 297 at 2.) The video recording of the interview reflects, in the court's view, that defendant Cervantes Sanchez did not make nonverbal gestures (i.e. nodding, etc.) that could reasonably be interpreted as indicating that she understood the Miranda warnings given to her.

Seemingly to acknowledge that Cervantes Sanchez still did not have a sufficient understanding of the Miranda warnings, Det. Navarro then repeated each individual advisement within the Miranda warning one by one. (See id.) After doing so, Det. Navarro received confirmation that defendant Cervantes Sanchez understood her right to remain silent, understood her right to have an attorney to be present while she was being questioned, and understood that an attorney would be provided to her free of charge if she could not afford one. (See Doc. No. 292 at 3-4.) However, Det. Navarro failed to explain and confirm that Cervantes Sanchez understoodthat any statements she made to him could be used against her. (Id. at 4.) Nonetheless, and despite the lack of confirmation that Cervantes Sanchez understood that what she said could be used against her, the interview proceeded. Defendant Cervantes Sanchez never made any statement during the course of that interview confirming that she knew that the statements she made to Det. Navarro could be used as evidence against her. (Id.)

The following day, on December 29, 2018, Homeland Security Investigations ("HIS") Agent David Olaya ("Agent Olaya") conducted a custodial interview of defendant Cervantes Sanchez at the Stanislaus County Jail. (See Doc. Nos. 299-7 at 1-17; 303 at 4.) This interview was also recorded, and the government has submitted a transcript of the interview under seal.3 (See Doc. No. 305 at 31-53.) Prior to commencing the interview, Agent Olaya fully advised defendant Cervantes Sanchez of all the Miranda warnings and asked her if she understood. (Doc. Nos. 305 at 33; 303 at 4.) Defendant Cervantes Sanchez responded "yes" and did not ask any follow-up questions. (Id.) Agent Olaya then proceeded with his interview of Cervantes Sanchez.

B. Legal Standards

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]" U.S. Const. Amend. V. The Supreme Court has "recognized that custodial interrogations, by their very nature, generate 'compelling pressures which work to undermine the individuals will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.'" Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 (1986) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467). "To combat this inherent compulsion, and thereby protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Miranda imposed on the police an obligation to follow certain procedures in their dealings with the accused." Moran, 475 U.S. at 420; see also Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 435 (2000); United States v. IMM, 747F.3d 754, 764 (9th Cir. 2014). Specifically, the Supreme Court has held the Constitution requires

that a person questioned by law enforcement officers after being "taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way" must first "be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed."

Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444); see also IMM, 747 F.3d at 764. "An officer's obligation to administer Miranda warnings attaches . . . only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him in custody." Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 322 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977)). The Supreme Court has also explained as follows:

The prophylactic Miranda warnings are not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected. Reviewing courts therefore need not examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda.

Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203 (1989) (internal citations and quotations omitted). "For inculpatory statements made by a defendant during custodial interrogation to be admissible in evidence, the defendant's 'waiver of Miranda rights must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.'" United States v. Garibay, 143 F.3d 534, 536 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Binder, 769 F.2d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1985)); see also United States v. Shi, 525 F.3d 709, 727 (9th Cir. 2008). "A valid waiver of Miranda rights depends upon the 'totality of the circumstances including the background, experience, and conduct of defendant.'" Shi, 525 F.3d at 727 (quoting Garibay, 143 F.3d at 536). "To satisfy this burden, the prosecution must introduce sufficient evidence to establish that under the 'totality of the circumstances,' the defendant was aware of 'the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.'" Garibay, 143 F.3d at 536-37 (quoting Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986)); see also United States v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, there is a presumption against waiver of Miranda rights and a heavy burden of showing a valid waiver by a preponderance of the evidence is on the prosecution. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S.157, 168 (1986); United States v. Bernard S., 795 F.2d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 1986); Shi, 525 F.3d at 727-28; see also Garibay, 143 F.3d at 537 ("The government's burden to make such a showing 'is great,' and the court will 'indulge every reasonable...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT