United States v. Vallejos
| Docket Number | 20-CR-1940-WJ |
| Decision Date | 17 November 2021 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALEX VALLEJOS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM MR. VALLEJOS' HOME AND CAR
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized from Mr. Vallejos' Home, filed June 8, 2021 (Doc. 46), and Defendant's Amended Motion to Suppress Evidence, filed June 9, 2021 (Doc. 47). Because both motions rely on a similar set of facts, the Court rules on them together. The Court held a suppression hearing on November 8, 2021. After hearing witness testimony and considering written and oral arguments of counsel, and considering the facts and applicable law, the Court finds that probable cause existed to support the warrantless search of Defendant's car and that the warrant permitting a search of Defendant's residence was proper. Defendant's Motions are therefore both DENIED.
Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) agents began investigating a suspected drug distributor, Arturo Ruiz (“Ruiz”), and his possible source of supply Eustacio Montoya (“Montoya”), in September 2018. (Doc. 46 at 1). The events of this investigation are lengthy detailed carefully and thoroughly in the United States' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 47] (Doc. 51). What follows is a briefer recitation of the facts, drawn from the accounts of both sides for completeness.
On January 1, February 14, and June 9, 2020, DEA agents arranged for a Confidential Source (CS) to meet with Ruiz and purchase heroin. (Doc. 51 at 9, 11, 12). Before and/or after these transactions, agents noticed Montoya or a vehicle registered to him present near the purchase location, at Ruiz's house, or in a suspected storage location known as a “stash house”; as a result, they believed that Montoya was supplying Ruiz with heroin to sell and meeting with him afterwards to collect a share of the proceeds. Id. at 10-14. Additionally, on August 14, 15, and 19, as well as September 19 and 26, further communications and sometimes meetings occurred between Ruiz and Montoya. Id. at 15-25.
Meanwhile, on March 5, 2020, agents investigated a phone number ending in 5082 based on its communications with Montoya's phone, which they were monitoring. Id. at 11. They found that the 5082 number was subscribed to Paul Garcia at 2600 Americare Ct. NW, Albuquerque, NM 87120. Id. However, upon investigating whether there was anyone by that name connected to that address in law enforcement databases, the agents found nothing, which suggested to them that the name or address was false. Id. at 11-12. However, Defendant established that a driver's license with this name and address does exist. (Doc. 61 at 11, Ex. B). Defendant also established that the Paul Garcia referenced above also has some prior criminal history such that his name should have appeared in some sort of data base that could be searched by law enforcement.
On August 13, 2020 agents surveilling Montoya's house observed a white Kia sedan parked in the driveway. (Doc. 51 at 14-15). The agents also observed two unidentified men talking with Montoya in the driveway. Id. at 15. One man left in a separate vehicle; the other, who was wearing a white shirt, stayed roughly half an hour longer, then left in the Kia sedan. Id. By running the Kia's plates, the agents identified Defendant's wife as the registered owner of the car. They found Defendant's driver's license photo in a law enforcement database and used it to identify him as the man in the white shirt. Id. The following day, an agent found out from law enforcement databases that Defendant had a DEA arrest for possible cocaine trafficking in 2006. Id.
On September 24, 2020 agents surveilled Montoya's truck as it left a suspected stash house, drove to a business called Z's Custom and Collision, stayed for nearly an hour, and then drove elsewhere in a manner that the United States characterizes as “an effort to evade law enforcement and confirm that no one was following him.” Id. at 22-23. A law enforcement database search indicated that Defendant had some connection to Z's Custom Collision. Id. at 23. Afterward, the DEA agents met with FBI agents who advised them that the FBI had conducted controlled drug buys from Defendant using a confidential source in 2013. Id.
Events came to a head on October 2. Montoya and the 5082 number, still unidentified given the possibility that Paul Garcia was a false name, exchanged several texts and calls throughout the morning and early afternoon. After a visit to a restaurant, Montoya texted the 5082 number, “Im ready bud” at 2:01 p.m. and arrived home at 2:02 p.m. Id. at 3. Montoya then placed a black object in his car at 2:06 p.m. (Doc. 61 at 13). A guest in a gold sedan arrived, also at 2:06 p.m., and while the guest was still present, Montoya received a response to his text from the 5082 number stating, “Ok” at 2:16 p.m. (Doc. 51 at 3.) Montoya placed a red box in his pick-up truck at 2:25 p.m., then texted the 5082 number, “Whats tha add” [What's the address?] at 2:26 p.m. Id. After two brief calls from the 5082 number, Montoya began driving. Id.
Agents located Montoya at Montano West Park at 2:53 p.m. after a twenty-eight-minute gap in observation, as the last time he'd been seen was when he put the red box in his truck at 2:25 p.m. (Doc. 61 at 12). A white sedan registered to Defendant's wife arrived at 3:02 p.m. (Doc. 51 at 4). At 3:01 p.m., 3:02 p.m., and 3:03 p.m., Montoya received brief incoming calls from the 5082 number. Id. Defendant exited the white sedan, brought a black duffel bag to Montoya's truck, spoke briefly with a landscaper who approached Montoya's truck, and returned to his white sedan with the duffel bag. Id. Then, at 3:05 p.m., he got into Montoya's passenger seat and remained there until 3:24 p.m. Id. When he left, he was carrying a red box, which according to surveillance photos appeared to be nearly identical to the same box as Montoya had earlier placed into his truck. Id. Defendant brought the red box to his own car, placed it in the trunk and then drove away at 3:26 p.m. Id.
At 3:38 p.m., agents stopped Defendant's white sedan. Id. at 6. Employing a ruse, they “told Defendant that his car matched the description of a vehicle involved in a violent crime case that was being investigated in the area.” Id. at 7. They required Defendant to exit the vehicle[1] and ordered him to sit or stand on the curb, but they did not force him to the ground or draw their weapons. Id. at 7; Doc. 61 at 16. They found the red box in the trunk and questioned him about it; Defendant stated that he did not know the contents of the box but that he had bought a tool from someone. (Doc. 51 at 7). Agents believed the box contained an illegal drug, so they seized the box and a Bernalillo County Sheriff's Deputy hand cuffed Defendant while agents decided on their next steps. Id. Defendant was then released. Id. A laboratory later determined that the substance in the red box weighed 982.9 grams and contained cocaine. Id. at 8.
After the encounter ended, the agents discovered that they had not returned Defendant's driver's license, so two sheriff's deputies brought it back to the address it listed: 10020 Calabacillas Court NW, Albuquerque, NM. Id. The deputies spoke with Defendant's wife, who confirmed that Defendant lived there. Id.
The 5082 number and Montoya did not communicate from the time Defendant arrived at Montano West Park (3:03 p.m.) until after the traffic stop was over. Subsequently, at 3:57 p.m., the 5082 number called Montoya. Id. at 8-9. The 5082 number called Montoya again at 4:19 p.m., 4:28 p.m., and 4:30 p.m. Id.
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful searches requires that a search warrant be issued by a neutral magistrate, have the support of probable cause, and “particularly describe the things to be seized, as well as the place to be searched.” Bowling v Rector, 584 F.3d 956, 969 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 255 (1979)). Probable cause exists when the available facts would cause a person “of reasonable caution” to believe “that contraband or evidence of a crime is present.” Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 243 (2013). Far from the measure of reasonable doubt employed in a criminal trial, courts considering probable cause look to the totality of the circumstances as a “practical and common-sensical standard.” Id. at 244.
To give teeth to these constitutional protections by deterring unlawful conduct, courts have developed the exclusionary rule, which allows for the suppression of certain evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's standards. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984).
When a motion to suppress involves a warrantless search, the defendant bears the prima facie burden “of showing the Fourth Amendment was implicated, ” and if this burden is met, then “the government has the burden of proving its warrantless actions were justified.” United States v. Goebel, 959 F.3d 1259, 1265 (10th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Carhee, 27 F.3d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir. 1994)); see also United States v. Thomas, 290 F.Supp.3d 1162, 1167 (D. Colo. 2017) ().
However when a warrant authorizes a search, courts afford “great deference” to the determination of the magistrate judge. Leon, 468 U.S. at 914; see also Carhee, 27 F.3d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Generally, if the search or seizure was pursuant to a warrant, the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial