United States v. Sanchez

• Decision Date: 29 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-2092,19-2092
• Citation: 983 F.3d 1151
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fabian I. SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

983 F.3d 1151

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Fabian I. SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-2092

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED December 29, 2020

Margaret Katze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Appellant.

Christopher S. McNair, Assistant United States Attorney (John C. Anderson, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney, Las Cruces, New Mexico, for Appellee.

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, EBEL, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge.

Fabian Sanchez is a convicted felon with a lengthy rap sheet. Late one night, he was approached by two police officers who suspected him of attempting to break into a vehicle sitting in the back area of a hotel parking lot. He was wearing a trench coat with a loaded gun in the pocket. After routine questioning, he was caught in a lie and then fled. During the chase, his trench coat ended up on the ground after one of the officers unsuccessfully tased Mr. Sanchez, but he kept running. He eventually ran back toward his trench coat but was tackled by the officers before he could get there. Mr. Sanchez was arrested, and the loaded gun was discovered in his trench coat.

Mr. Sanchez was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He filed a motion to suppress the gun, and the government filed a motion in limine to admit an incriminating statement Mr. Sanchez made after his arrest. The district court denied Mr. Sanchez's motion and granted the government's motion. Mr. Sanchez pleaded guilty on the condition that he could appeal these rulings. He was then sentenced pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).

On appeal, Mr. Sanchez argues (1) the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to seize him and lacked probable cause to arrest him, violating his Fourth Amendment rights; (2) the officers searched his trench coat without a warrant even though he did not voluntarily abandon it, violating his Fourth Amendment rights; and (3) his incriminating statement was the product of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, violating his Fifth Amendment rights. Mr. Sanchez also contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. And finally, Mr. Sanchez argues his sentence pursuant to the ACCA was made in error.

We reject each of these arguments and therefore AFFIRM the district court.

I. Background¹

On a November night in 2016, Rio Rancho Police Department Officer Aaron Brown was on patrol in an unmarked truck wearing plain clothes. Earlier in the day he received a warning from police dispatch to look out for a stolen silver Hyundai vehicle in the area. Officer Brown was driving through an Extended Stay America Hotel parking lot when he noticed an unoccupied Hyundai. This was notable to him not only because of the warning fresh in his mind from earlier in the day, but also because he had recovered stolen vehicles from this parking lot before.

Officer Brown's nearly eight years of training and experience dealing with stolen vehicles also led him to find the Hyundai suspicious because, unlike most vehicles, the Hyundai was parked away from the curb and its left front and back tires were sitting on the white line. Officer Brown's suspicions increased when he relayed the plate to dispatch and it returned a registration to a 2005 Hyundai. But he knew this vehicle was much newer because of its body style, lack of damage, and relatively new rims and tires. Officer Brown parked and then exited his vehicle to check the last four numbers of the Hyundai's vehicle identification number (VIN). They did not match the VIN associated with the license plate.

Officer Brown called for backup so he could check the entire VIN safely. Officer Alex Cordova responded and arrived at the Extended Stay parking lot after 9:00 p.m., parking next to Officer Brown's vehicle. Just as the officers were about to approach the Hyundai to retrieve the full VIN, a Lexus entered the parking lot. It backed into the space next to the Hyundai, leaving two to three feet between the vehicles. The officers observed Mr. Sanchez exit the Lexus in a loose-fitting trench coat. He left the driver's side door open, creating a barrier between the two parked vehicles and substantially obstructing the officers’ view of him. Mr. Sanchez walked to the back of the Lexus and retrieved a toolbox, then crouched down with the toolbox in between the vehicles. Based on these circumstances, Officer Brown thought Mr. Sanchez was going to try to "punch the lock," or "manipulat[e] the driver's side door outside lock to enter the [Hyundai]." R., Vol. 1 at 122. The officers resumed approaching the Hyundai to investigate and retrieve the full VIN.

Officer Brown approached the front of the Lexus while Officer Cordova went around back. After the officers identified themselves as police, Officer Brown shut the driver's side door of the Lexus so he could see Mr. Sanchez's hands and ensure he did not have a weapon. Officer Brown next ordered Mr. Sanchez to put down the toolbox he was holding, which he did. Mr. Sanchez then placed his hands in his trench coat pockets.

Officer Brown began a conversation with Mr. Sanchez in a mellow, conversational tone. He asked, referring to the Hyundai, "Hey, whose car is this? Is this your car?" Mr. Sanchez responded that it was his girlfriend's car and he was working on it. Then Officer Brown asked, "Well, whose is the Lexus?" Mr. Sanchez answered it was not his car. Officer Brown continued, "Whose car is it?" and Mr. Sanchez responded, "Well, I didn't get out of it." To this, Officer Brown chuckled and stated, "I've been sitting here watching you. I saw you get out of the Lexus." Then Officer Brown noticed that Mr. Sanchez's demeanor changed, distancing himself from the Lexus. Mr. Sanchez also began scanning the parking lot and backing up with his hands in his pockets. In both officers’ training and experience, they have learned that roaming eyes in these situations means a person is looking for backup or getting ready to flee. The officers were also worried that the trench coat's deep pockets could hold weapons.

Concerned for his safety, Officer Brown next asked Mr. Sanchez in a more authoritative tone to put his hands on his head for a pat-down search. Mr. Sanchez started to back away and either asked, "Why?" or stated, "I didn't do nothing."² Officer Brown commanded Mr. Sanchez to put his hands on his head one or two more times before Mr. Sanchez fled.

Both officers chased after Mr. Sanchez and yelled at him to stop, but he did not comply. During the pursuit, they could see Mr. Sanchez looking back at them and reaching into his right trench coat pocket while in full stride. This made the officers believe Mr. Sanchez was reaching for a weapon, so Officer Cordova deployed his taser at Mr. Sanchez. But it did not work correctly. Officer Brown has been tased before in training, and he testified that it caused his muscles to completely lock up. Officer Cordova also testified that the taser did not appear to affect Mr. Sanchez because, if it had been effective, Mr. Sanchez would have fallen to the ground instantly. But here, Mr. Sanchez "never really missed a step." R., Vol. 1 at 140.

Shortly after Mr. Sanchez was unsuccessfully tased, the officers observed Mr. Sanchez take off his trench coat and throw it to the ground while he was running. Then Mr. Sanchez made a U-turn and began running back toward the vehicles and his trench coat. Before he could get there, Mr. Sanchez collided with the officers.

Officer Cordova handcuffed Mr. Sanchez, and Officer Brown went back to retrieve Mr. Sanchez's trench coat. When Officer Brown picked up the trench coat, he noticed an uneven weight distribution and that the item causing this was heavier than a wallet or keys. In the right pocket of the trench coat, Officer Brown discovered a .380 Jimenez Arms handgun with a live bullet in the chamber and five rounds in the magazine. Officer Brown called out to Officer Cordova, "Hey, I think we have a gun." When he said this, Officer Brown did not make eye contact with Mr. Sanchez. Officer Brown was alerting Officer Cordova to the weapon so that he could be vigilant as to the presence of other weapons on Mr. Sanchez's person. Immediately following Officer Brown's alert, Mr. Sanchez stated, "That's why I ran."

Mr. Sanchez was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He filed a motion to suppress the gun, arguing it was the fruit of the poisonous tree due to a lack of reasonable suspicion that he was committing a crime and a lack of probable cause at various times during his encounter with the officers. The government filed a motion in limine to admit statements of Mr. Sanchez, including "That's why I ran" after Officer Brown notified Officer Cordova he had found a gun in the trench coat. The district court considered both motions at the same hearing. It denied Mr. Sanchez's motion to suppress and granted the government's motion in limine. Mr. Sanchez appeals these rulings.

After the gun and his incriminating statement were ruled admissible, Mr. Sanchez decided to enter a guilty plea. The plea agreement laid out the elements of Mr. Sanchez's crime of conviction as (1) the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm or ammunition in New Mexico, (2) the defendant was convicted of a felony before he possessed a firearm or ammunition, and (3) before the defendant possessed the firearm or ammunition, the firearm or ammunition had moved at some time from one state to another. These elements were echoed at Mr. Sanchez's change of plea hearing, at which the district court accepted Mr. Sanchez's guilty plea.

Two months after Mr. Sanchez was sentenced, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019). In Rehaif , the Court held that to convict a...