United States v. Valdez
| Docket Number | CR 21-0562 JB |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAIME VALDEZ, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Fred J. Federici United States Attorney Nora Wilson Joseph M Spindle Assistant United States Attorneys United States Attorney's Office Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Margaret Katze Federal Public Defender Devon Fooks Assistant Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for the Defendant
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements, filed September 10, 2021 (Doc. 22)(“Motion to Suppress”), and the Defendant's Motion to Strike, filed April 28, 2022 (Doc 84)(“Motion to Strike”). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Suppress on February 4 2022. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed February 4, 2022 (Doc. 51). The Court held a Motion Hearing on April 25, 2022, see Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed April 25, 2022 (Doc. 82), and a Pre-Trial Conference on May 2, 2022, see Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed May 2, 2022 (Doc. 86). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should strike the United States' Notice of Supplemental Exhibits, filed April 26, 2022 (Doc. 81)(“Supplemental Notice”), and attached exhibits, where these were filed after the Court announced that it would grant in part the Motion to Suppress at the April 25, 2022, motion hearing; (ii) whether Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office (“BCSO”) deputies had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Defendant Jaime Valdez, when he matched the description of someone who engaged in suspicious activity the prior night; (iii) whether BCSO deputies had reasonable suspicion to pat down Valdez, because Valdez was reaching into his duffel bag as the deputies approached him; (iv) whether BCSO deputies had legitimate custody of Valdez' bag after they arrested him in public on outstanding felony warrants; (v) whether BCSO deputies performed a valid search incident to arrest, where Valdez was separated from his bag at the time of the search; (vi) whether the BCSO deputies' search of Valdez' bag was a lawful inventory search; (vii) whether the United States demonstrates that the contents of Valdez' bag would have been inevitably discovered during an inventory search before Valdez was booked; and (viii) whether Valdez is entitled to the suppression of statements he made to BCSO deputies when Valdez was in pain from being handcuffed with pins in his hand, and when he was possibly under the influence of drugs. The Court concludes that: (i) it will consider the United States' Supplemental Notice and attached exhibits, because, under United States v. Huff, 782 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2015), a district court may reconsider a motion to suppress when suppressed evidence turns out to have been constitutionally obtained and where application of the exclusionary rule would provide no meaningful deterrence; (ii) BCSO deputies had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Valdez, because, given Valdez' suspicious activity -- throwing his duffel bag into a stranger's yard -- the prior night, the BCSO deputies had an objective and particularized basis for suspecting that Valdez was engaged in criminal activity; (iii) BCSO deputies had reasonable suspicion that Valdez was armed and dangerous, because, given Valdez' behavior the prior night, BCSO deputies reasonably suspected that Valdez was armed and dangerous; (iv) BCSO deputies had legitimate custody of Valdez' bag, because they arrested him on public property and the deputies had no alternatives to impoundment; (v) BCSO deputies' search was not a valid search incident to arrest, because the duffel bag was no longer within Valdez' reach when it was searched; (vi) BCSO deputies did not perform an inventory search, because the United States does not demonstrate that the BCSO deputies performed a search consistent with standardized police procedures; (vii) the contents of Valdez' bag would have been discovered inevitably through a valid inventory search, because, based on both BCSO and Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) policies, Valdez' duffel bag would have been subject to an inventory search prior to booking; (viii) Valdez is not entitled to the suppression of statements he made to BCSO deputies and to Drug Enforcement Agency Task Force Officer Castaneda, because Valdez was lucid and was not in significant pain when he waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)(“Miranda”), even though he was in significant pain when BCSO Deputy Anthony McLeod handled Valdez' hands and wrists to put handcuffs on Valdez.
Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the Court to state its essential findings on the record when deciding a motion that involves factual issues. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d) (). The findings of fact in this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall serve as the Court's essential findings for rule 12(d) purposes. The Court makes these findings under the authority of rule 104(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which requires a judge to decide preliminary questions relating to the admissibility of evidence, including the legality of a search or seizure, and the voluntariness of an individual's confession or consent to a search. See United States v. Merritt, 695 F.2d 1263, 1269-70 (10th Cir. 1982). In deciding such preliminary questions, the other rules of evidence, except those with respect to privileges, do not bind the Court. See Fed.R.Evid. 104(a) ( ). “[H]earsay testimony is admissible at suppression hearings . . . and should be considered by a district court[.]” United States v. Miramonted, 365 F.3d 902, 904 (10th Cir. 2004)(citing United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 173 (1974)).[2]
1. Valdez' Criminal History.
1. In January 2009, Valdez was charged with “False imprisonment (felony),” “Abandonment/Abuse of a Child (felony),” the “Unlawful Taking of a Motor Vehicle (felony),” “Resisting/Evading an Officer (misdemeanor),” “Battery Against a Household Member (misdemeanor),” and “Possession of Marijuana One Ounce or Less (misdemeanor).” United States Probation Office's Pretrial Services Report at 5, filed May 12, 2021 (Doc. 14)(“Bail Report”).
2. Valdez pled guilty to those charges on April 3, 2012. Bail Report at 5.
3. In October, 2009, Valdez was charged with, among other things, with “Kidnapping (first degree)(felony),” “Aggravated battery (great bodily harm)(household member)(felony),” “Abuse of a Child -- negligently caused,” and “Battery (household member)(misdemeanor).” Bail Report at 5-6.
4. Valdez pled guilty to the October, 2009, charge of battery of a household member. See Bail Report at 5-6.
5. Valdez has been arrested and charged twenty-two other times. See Bail Report at 4-10.
6. The State of New Mexico has dismissed charges against Valdez twenty-two times. See Bail Report at 4-10.
2. The Incident.
7. On the morning of February 20, 2021, “a Hispanic man in his early 20s” knocked on the door of 1700 Bonaguidi Road SW, Albuquerque, New Mexico, to retrieve a bag that he had thrown over the wall the prior night. Motion to Suppress at 1. See Victim/Witness Statement at 1 (taken March 3, 2021), filed November 19, 2021 (Doc. 42-1)(“Witness Statement”).
8. The resident of 1700 Bonaguidi Road later called the police and “reported that earlier that morning a man rang her doorbell asking if he could get back a bag he had thrown into the yard.” Motion to Suppress at 1. See Witness Statement at 1.
9. “The resident said she would get [the bag] for him.” Motion to Suppress at 1.
10. The resident “didn't want [the young man] in her yard so she grabbed the duffel bag and gave it to him[,]” but then later decided to call the police “when she was leaving to run errands” and “noticed the same individual was still walking on the street.” Draft Transcript of Hearing at 8:9-13 (taken February 4, 2022)(“Tr.”)(McLeod).[3]See Witness Statement at 1.
11. The young man “loitered in the neighborhood for several hours” after he got his bag back. Witness Statement at 1.
12. That morning, BCSO Deputies Anthony McLeod and Bradley Denger were on patrol in the South Valley of Albuquerque, when McLeod “received a dispatch that there was a suspicious male that was casing the area” who “had a duffel bag and [that] he had like a gray sweater and some blue [jeans] and he was casing the area for a long period of time, which raised concern.” Tr. at 7:9-13 (McLeod). See Id. at 43:23-25 (Denger).
13. The South Valley is a high crime area. See Tr. at 43:10-12 (Wilson, Denger).
14. McLeod and Denger were “driving separate units.” Tr. at 44:1-2 (Wilson). See Id. at 44:3 (Denger).
15. McLeod and Denger could not immediately locate the subject, so they went to Shadyside Park, which is close to Bonaguidi Road, “where we can visualize and see all the way down the street.” Tr. at 10:8-12 (McLeod). See Id. at 45:20-46:3 (Wilson, Denger).
16. McLeod and Denger were writing reports in their vehicle at Shadyside Park, when McLeod “saw an individual directly across the street from the park” who “match[ed] the description carrying a duffel bag walk from the north side of the dirt lot and walk straight towards a vehicle that was for sale on the lot.” Tr. at 10:24-11:4 (McLeod).
17. The young man, whom the deputies later identified as Valdez, see Tr. at 17:5-3 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial