United States v. Cordero-Rosario, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Cordero-Rosario, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/31

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1007

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

HI LTON ALEXI S CORDERO- ROSARI O,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Gust avo A. Gel pi , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Li pez, and Barr on,Ci r cui t J udges.

J os L. Ni et o- Mi ngo, wi t h whom Ni et o Law Of f i ces, J os A.Pagn, and Pagn Law Of f i ces wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Franci sco A. Besosa- Mar t nez, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, and Nel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,Chi ef , Appel l at e Di vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

May 4, 2015


2/31

BARRON, Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal concer ns a di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci si on t o deny a sweepi ng mot i on t o suppr ess evi dence i n

a f eder al chi l d por nogr aphy pr osecut i on. The def endant cont ends

t hat al l of t he evi dence t hat he seeks t o suppr ess may be t r aced t o

t wo al l egedl y unconst i t ut i onal sear ches t hat t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce

car r i ed out bef ore he was even under suspi ci on on t he f ederal

char ges.

The def endant seeks f i r st t o suppress any evi dence t hat

was acqui r ed i n t hose t wo searches. And we agr ee t hat , under t he

est abl i shed pr ecedent of t he Supr eme Cour t and our Ci r cui t , t he

sear ches car r i ed out by the Puer t o Ri co pol i ce di d vi ol at e t he

Four t h Amendment and t hat any evi dence that t he gover nment wi shes

t o use t hat was acqui r ed onl y f r om t hose sear ches must be

suppr essed.

The mor e di f f i cul t i ssue concer ns t he def endant ' s at t empt

t o suppr ess t he evi dence t hat f eder al agent s l at er acqui r ed af t er

r ecei vi ng t he consent of t he def endant ' s t hen- wi f e to exami ne

cer t ai n el ect r oni c devi ces t aken f r omher and t he def endant ' s home.

The def endant cont ends t hat t hi s evi dence al so must be suppressed

because t he f eder al agent s i ni t i at ed t hei r i nvest i gat i on - - and

t hus car r i ed out t he consent - based exami nat i ons - - onl y af t er t he

Puer t o Ri co pol i ce suppl i ed a t i p t hat was pr emi sed sol el y on

i nf or mat i on t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce acqui r ed f r om t he t wo pr i or

unl awf ul sear ches.

-2-


3/31

We have pr evi ousl y hel d t hat t he t ai nt f r om a pr i or

unconst i t ut i onal sear ch may r ender evi dence obt ai ned f r om a

subsequent consent - based sear ch i l l egal " f r ui t s of t he poi sonous

t r ee" t hat must be suppr essed. See Uni t ed St ates v. NavedoCol n,

996 F. 2d 1337, 1338- 39 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . Unf or t unat el y, however ,

t he r ecor d i n t hi s appeal cont ai ns l i t t l e t hat woul d hel p us deci de

whet her such suppr essi on i s requi r ed her e. The Di st r i ct Cour t made

no f act ual f i ndi ngs on t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he sear ches t he

Puert o Ri co pol i ce conduct ed and t he subsequent f ederal

i nvest i gat i on, whi ch r esul t ed i n f eder al aut hor i t i es obt ai ni ng t he

consent of t he def endant ' s t hen- wi f e. I nst ead, t he Di st r i ct Cour t

r ul ed - - er r oneousl y - - t hat t he t wo sear ches t he Puer t o Ri co

pol i ce car r i ed out di d not vi ol at e t he Four t h Amendment . For t hat

r eason, t he Di st r i ct Cour t had no occasi on t o addr ess whet her t hose

unl awf ul sear ches t ai nt t he evi dence f eder al aut hor i t i es l at er

acqui r ed pur suant t o t he consent t he def endant ' s t hen- wi f e

pr ovi ded.

The par t i es do appear t o ask us t o r esol ve t hi s i ssue on

t he basi s of t he r ecor d bef or e us, not wi t hst andi ng i t s undevel oped

st at e. But because t he i ssue i s so f act dependent , we vacat e and

r emand so t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t may hol d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng

t o det er mi ne whet her t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce' s pr i or sear ches so

t ai nt ed t he evi dence t he f eder al agent s l at er obt ai ned pur suant t o

t he consent t hat t he def endant ' s t hen- wi f e suppl i ed t hat such

-3-


4/31

evi dence must be suppr essed. I f t he Di st r i ct Cour t det er mi nes

suppr essi on i s r equi r ed, t hen t he Di st r i ct Cour t al so must

det er mi ne what speci f i c evi dence i n f act must be suppr essed i n

consequence.

I.

On Febr uar y 4, 2011, Agent Noel Ramos- Or t z, an of f i cer

i n t he Car ol i na Sexual Cr i mes Di vi si on of t he Puer t o Ri co St at e

Pol i ce, f i l ed an af f i davi t wi t h t he Puer t o Ri co Cour t of Fi r st

I nst ance. Agent Ramos f i l ed t he af f i davi t i n suppor t of hi s

r equest f or a war r ant t o sear ch t he apar t ment of Hi l t on

Cor der o- Rosar i o, t he def endant i n t hi s case. 1

The af f i davi t expl ai ned t hat Cor der o was under

i nvest i gat i on f or havi ng commi t t ed l ewd act s wi t h a mi nor , i n

vi ol at i on of Puer t o Ri co l aw. See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 33,

4772( a) . A Puer t o Ri co magi st r at e j udge i ssued t he war r ant t he

same day Agent Ramos submi t t ed i t , and Agent Ramos t hen conduct ed

a sear ch of Cor der o' s apar t ment l at er t hat day. Dur i ng t hat

sear ch, t he pol i ce sei zed a deskt op comput er and ot her el ect r oni c

equi pment .

1 We gl ean t he f act s as best we can f r om t he spar se r ecor dbef ore us and note that t he def endant ' s mot i on t o suppr ess and t hepar t i es' appel l at e br i ef i ng pur por t t o pr ovi de some f act ual i nsi ghton t he sur r oundi ng event s. We emphasi ze, however , t hat under t heci r cumst ances of t hi s case t he Di st r i ct Cour t shoul d f eel f r ee t oexpl or e f ul l y t he hi st or i cal f act s as i t deems necessar y.

-4-


5/31

Three weeks l at er , on Februar y 25, 2011, and i n

connect i on wi t h t he same cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on, Agent Ramos f i l ed

a second af f i davi t wi t h t he Cour t of Fi r st I nst ance. Agent Ramos

agai n sought a war r ant t o sear ch Cor der o' s apar t ment . A magi st r at e

j udge i ssued a war r ant f ol l owi ng t hi s second r equest , and a search

of Cordero' s apart ment ensued on Febr uary 26, 2011. The pol i ce

conduct ed t hi s second sear ch i n t he pr esence of Cor der o' s

t hen- wi f e, D. M. C. , but not Cor der o hi msel f . The pol i ce sei zed

var i ous el ect r oni c devi ces not t aken i n t he f i r st sear ch.

Fol l owi ng t hese searches, Agent Ramos' s t eam determi ned

t hat t he sei zed mat er i al s, i ncl udi ng t he deskt op comput er obt ai ned

on Febr uary 4, cont ai ned i mages bel i eved to be chi l d por nogr aphy.

Puer t o Ri co pol i ce i nf or med f eder al l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s i n

Puer t o Ri co of what t hey had f ound. 2

Mor e than a mont h l at er , on Apr i l 11, 2011, af t er t he

Puer t o Ri co pol i ce had i nf or med f eder al aut hor i t i es about t he

i mages t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce had f ound, f eder al agent s appr oached

D. M. C. and appar ent l y asked f or her assi st ance i n t hei r

i nvest i gat i on of her husband f or f eder al chi l d por nogr aphy

vi ol at i ons. D. M. C. consent ed t o t he f eder al agent s' exami nat i on of

t he f ami l y' s deskt op comput er , whi ch at t hat t i me was appar ent l y

2 I t i s not cl ear , however , pr eci sel y how or when t he Puer t oRi co pol i ce pr ovi ded t hi s i nf or mat i on t o f eder al aut hor i t i es,pr eci sel y who f r omt he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce di d so, or pr eci sel y whatwas di scussed.

-5-


6/31

st i l l i n t he cust ody of t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce. D. M. C. al so agr eed

t o t ur n over other di gi t al medi a i n t he home. Cordero was not

pr esent dur i ng thi s meet i ng bet ween f eder al agent s and hi s t hen-

wi f e.

On t he basi s of t he consent D. M. C. gave, f eder al l aw

enf orcement agent s on May 2, 2011, per f ormed t hei r own f orensi c

exami nat i on of t he deskt op comput er . That exami nat i on r eveal ed a

number of sexual l y expl i ci t phot ogr aphs of a mi nor f emal e. The

mi nor depi ct ed i n t hese photogr aphs was not t he same mi nor f emal e

whose compl ai nt of l ewd act s had pr eci pi t at ed t he i ni t i al sear ches

of Cordero' s apart ment The government conduct ed i nt ervi ews wi t h

t he mi nor who appeared i n t hese i mages on May 12, 2011.

Then, on December 7, 2011, a f eder al grand j ury i n Puer t o

Ri co i ndi ct ed t he def endant f or t went y count s of pr oduct i on of

chi l d por nogr aphy ( i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 2251( a) ) and t wo

count s of possessi on of chi l d por nogr aphy ( i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 2252( a) ( 4) ( B) ) . Cor der o ent er ed a pl ea of not gui l t y on

December 22, 2011. The gr and j ur y t hen i ssued a supersedi ng

i ndi ct ment t hat al l eged, i n subst ance, t he same char ges.

Cordero di d not i mmedi atel y ent er a pl ea under t he

super sedi ng i ndi ct ment . I nst ead, on J une 25, 2012, Cor der o f i l ed

a mot i on t o suppr ess. I n t hat mot i on, Cor der o sought t o suppr ess

"al l t he evi dence t hat was obt ai ned as a resul t of t he execut i on of

both" t he Febr uary 4 and Febr uary 25 search warr ant s, as wel l as

-6-


7/31

t he evi dence that t he f eder al agent s had obt ai ned pur suant t o

D. M. C. ' s consent t o t he exami nat i on of t he deskt op comput er and t he

ot her mat er i al s t hat she t ur ned over t o t he f eder al agent s.

Accor di ng t o Cor der o' s mot i on, t he war r ant af f i davi t s

f i l ed wi t h t he Puer t o Ri co Cour t of Fi r st I nst ance f ai l ed t o

est abl i sh t he pr obabl e cause necessar y t o suppor t t he t wo sear ches

of hi s apar t ment on Febr uar y 4 and Febr uar y 26, r espect i vel y.

Cor der o al so ar gued t hat t hese unl awf ul sear ches - - by l eadi ng t o

t he di scover y of t he i mages t hat i ni t i at ed t he f eder al chi l d

por nogr aphy i nvest i gat i on - - r equi r ed t hat al l t he evi dence t hat

f eder al l aw enf or cement l at er obt ai ned be suppr essed as " f r ui t of

t he poi sonous t r ee. "

The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed Cor der o' s mot i on t o suppress .

I n doi ng so, t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not wai t f or t he gover nment ' s

r esponse t o Cor der o' s mot i on. Nor di d t he Di st r i ct Cour t hol d an

evi dent i ar y hear i ng, as Cor der o had r equest ed. I nst ead, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t based i t s suppr essi on r ul i ng sol el y on t he Febr uar y

4 and Febr uar y 25 af f i davi t s. Accor di ng t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t :

Agent Ramos- Or t i z' s appl i cat i on f or sear ch war r ant st at eshe i s i nvest i gat i ng a compl ai nt r egar di ng l ewd andl asci vi ous act s commi t t ed agai nst mi nor P. C. M. , whoher sel f pr ovi ded t he i nf or mat i on about t he por nogr aphi cmat er i al i n t he def endant ' s comput er . Whi l e possessi on

of por nogr aphy i n and of i t sel f , may not be a st at e orf eder al cr i me, her e, t he possessi on per t ai ns t o ani nvest i gat i on of a sexual cr i me agai nst a mi nor . Thef act t hat t he appl i cat i on f or a sear ch war r ant i s notdr af t ed as el abor at el y as an FBI appl i cat i on does not doaway wi t h probabl e cause.

-7-


8/31

Corder o and t he government t hen reached a pl ea agreement .

Cor der o pl ed gui l t y onl y t o one of t he t wo possessi on count s. That

count was based on t he mater i al f ound on t he hard dr i ve of t he

deskt op comput er t hat t he Puert o Ri co pol i ce had sei zed on Febr uary

4 and t hat t he f eder al aut hor i t i es had l at er exami ned ( wi t h

D. M. C. ' s consent ) af t er t hei r Apr i l 11 i nt er vi ew wi t h D. M. C. I n

r et ur n f or Cor der o' s pl ea, t he gover nment agr eed t o al l ow Cor der o

t o r eser ve t he r i ght t o appeal t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deci si on

denyi ng t he mot i on t o suppr ess.

Cor der o now i nvokes that r i ght . He cont ends that t he

Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed not onl y i n denyi ng hi s suppr essi on mot i on

out r i ght , but al so i n not hol di ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t he

suppr essi on i ssue.

II.

We begi n wi t h Cor der o' s most st r ai ght f or war d chal l enge,

i n whi ch he seeks t o suppr ess t he evi dence that t he Puer t o Ri co

pol i ce sei zed i n t he Febr uar y 4 and Febr uar y 26 sear ches. Cor der o

cont ends t hat t he af f i davi t s t he pol i ce pr esent ed i n suppor t of t he

war r ant r equest s wer e so l acki ng i n t he necessary i ndi ci a of

pr obabl e cause t hat no r easonabl e magi st r ate j udge coul d have

i ssued a war r ant based on t hose af f i davi t s.

The gover nment di sagr ees wi t h Cor der o, ar gui ng t hat t he

war r ant af f i davi t s wer e suf f i ci ent . But t he gover nment goes on t o

ar gue t hat , even i f t he t wo war r ant af f i davi t s wer e i nsuf f i ci ent ,

-8-


9/31

t he Di st r i ct Cour t was st i l l cor r ect not t o suppr ess t hi s evi dence.

And t hat i s because, t he gover nment ar gues, t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce

act ed i n good f ai t h i n r el yi ng on t he i ssued war r ant s, and, i n any

event , t he sei zed mat er i al woul d i nevi t abl y have been di scover ed

t hr ough i ndependent l awf ul means. We st ar t wi t h t he t hr eshol d

i ssue: whether t he sear ches were conduct ed wi t hout pr obabl e cause.

A.

Under t he Four t h Amendment , a l aw enf orcement of f i cer ' s

appl i cat i on f or a sear ch war r ant must "demonst r at e pr obabl e cause

t o bel i eve t hat . . . a cr i me has been commi t t ed, " whi ch i s known

as t he "commi ss i on" el ement of t he requi r ed pr obabl e cause showi ng.

Uni t ed St at es v. Fel i z, 182 F. 3d 82, 86 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Vi geant , 176 F. 3d 565, 569 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) . I n

addi t i on, t he appl i cat i on must "demonst r at e pr obabl e cause t o

bel i eve t hat . . . enumer at ed evi dence of t he of f ense wi l l be f ound

at t he pl ace t o be searched, " whi ch i s known as t he "nexus"

el ement . Fel i z, 182 F. 3d at 86; see al so Vi geant , 176 F. 3d at 569.

Her e, t he def endant ' s chal l enge f ocuses on t he nexus

el ement . I n det er mi ni ng whet her t hi s el ement i s sat i sf i ed, "[ t ] he

t ask of t he i ssui ng magi st r at e i s . . . t o make a pr act i cal ,

common- sense deci si on whether , gi ven al l t he ci r cumst ances set

f or t h i n t he af f i davi t bef or e hi m, . . . t her e i s a f ai r

pr obabi l i t y t hat cont r aband or evi dence of a cr i me wi l l be f ound i n

a par t i cul ar pl ace. " I l l i noi s v. Gat es, 462 U. S. 213, 238 ( 1983) .

-9-


10/31

Wi t h respect t o how st r ong that showi ng must be, " t he f act s

pr esent ed t o t he magi st r ate need onl y ' warr ant a r easonabl e man of

caut i on' t o bel i eve t hat evi dence of a cr i me wi l l be f ound. "

Fel i z, 182 F. 3d at 86 ( quot i ng Texas v. Br own, 460 U. S. 730, 742

( 1983) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ) . I n conduct i ng our r evi ew, mor eover ,

"we gi ve si gni f i cant def er ence t o t he magi st r at e j udge' s i ni t i al

eval uat i on, r ever si ng onl y i f we see no ' subst ant i al basi s' f or

concl udi ng t hat pr obabl e cause exi st ed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ri bei r o,

397 F. 3d 43, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( quot i ng Fel i z, 182 F. 3d at 86) .

To deter mi ne whet her t her e was a subst ant i al basi s f or

f i ndi ng a nexus, i t i s i mpor t ant t o i dent i f y at t he out set t he

cr i me under i nvest i gat i on. As the gover nment r i ght l y poi nt s out ,

Cor der o was not under i nvest i gat i on f or f eder al of f enses i nvol vi ng

t he possessi on or pr oduct i on of chi l d por nogr aphy at t he t i me the

af f i davi t s wer e f i l ed. He was i nst ead under i nvest i gat i on f or

commi t t i ng l ewd act s agai nst a mi nor i n vi ol at i on of Puer t o Ri co

l aw. Thus, t he quest i on t hat mat t er s wi t h r espect t o t he adequacy

of t he t wo af f i davi t s i s not ( as Cor der o at t i mes cont ends i n hi s

br i ef s) whet her t he af f i davi t s suppor t ed a sear ch f or evi dence of

t he f eder al chi l d por nogr aphy of f ense - - whi ch t he af f i davi t s di d

not pur por t t o show. The quest i on i s whet her t he af f i davi t s

pr ovi ded a " ' subst ant i al basi s' f or concl udi ng t hat pr obabl e cause

exi st ed" t hat evi dence of t he cr i me of l ewd and l asci vi ous act s

under Puer t o Ri co l aw woul d be f ound. I d. Even wi t h our f ocus

-10-


11/31

t r ai ned sol el y on t hat quest i on, however , we concl ude that nei t her

af f i davi t pr ovi des enough suppor t i ng i nf or mat i on on t hat i ssue.

Agent Ramos f i l ed t he f i r st af f i davi t i n suppor t of a

sear ch war r ant i n the case agai nst Cor der o on Febr uar y 4, 2011.

That af f i davi t st at ed:

That on Februar y 4, 2011, I was ass i gned t hecompl ai nt 2011- 8- 316- 00841, on l ewd act i ons.

I under st and and concl ude f r om t he i nvest i gat i oncar r i ed out by me i n t hi s case and i n accor dance wi t h t hei nt er vi ew of t he i nj ur ed par t y P. C. M. , mi nor , t hat i napart ment 2704 of J ar di nes de Par que Escor i al i nCar ol i na, Puer t o Ri co, t her e i s a desktop comput er i nwhi ch t her e i s por nogr aphi c mat er i al . . . .

Accordi ng t o t he government , "because agent s were . . .

i nvest i gat [ i ng] . . . accusat i ons of l ewd and l asci vi ous act s

agai nst a mi nor , t her e was a f ai r pr obabi l i t y t hat any por nogr aphi c

mat er i al f ound i n Cor der o- Rosar i o' s comput er woul d const i t ut e

evi dence of a cr i me. " Appel l ee Br . 18. Thus, t he gover nment

cont ends, t he af f i davi t di d al l t hat i t needed t o do.

We do not agr ee. Cordero was not bei ng i nvest i gated f or

possessi on of i l l egal por nogr aphy. He was bei ng i nvest i gat ed f or

commi t t i ng cer t ai n l ewd act s. The af f i davi t , however , suppl i es no

basi s f or connect i ng t he por nogr aphy that was t he obj ect of t he

sear ch t o t hat par t i cul ar of f ense, whi ch, i n i t s nat ur e, does not

necessar i l y i nvol ve t he use of por nogr aphy at al l . I n t hi s r egar d,

t he af f i davi t does not st at e at any poi nt t hat t he al l eged l ewd and

l asci vi ous acts wer e car r i ed out i n a manner t hat i nvol ved t he use

-11-


12/31

of por nogr aphy, whi ch i s on i t s own l egal t o possess. I n f act , t he

af f i davi t says not hi ng at al l about why the exi st ence of ot her wi se

l awf ul por nography on a home deskt op comput er woul d be r el evant t o

t hi s par t i cul ar cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on. Nor does t he af f i davi t

st at e or even i nt i mat e that t he "por nogr aphi c mat er i al " i n quest i on

i nvol ved t he i nj ur ed mi nor , or any mi nor at al l . Cf . Uni t ed St at es

v. J ouber t , 778 F. 3d 247, 253 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( uphol di ng a sear ch

based on an af f i davi t t hat mor e cl osel y t i ed t he evi dence sought t o

t he al l eged of f ense) . And t he gover nment asks us, i n assessi ng t he

suf f i ci ency of t he pr edi cat e f or bot h war r ant s, t o l ook onl y wi t hi n

t hei r f our cor ner s and t hose of t he at t ached af f i davi t s. 3

As t he government conceded at argument , moreover , t he

af f i davi t al so does not st at e a f act t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t seems

t o have assumed: t hat t he mi nor who i s al l eged t o have been t he

vi ct i m of t he cr i me t ol d t he pol i ce about t he "por nogr aphi c

mat er i al " on t he comput er . Such a st atement i n t he af f i davi t woul d

perhaps per mi t an i nf erence t hat pornogr aphy had been used by t he

def endant i n t he mi nor ' s pr esence i n such a way as t o be connected

3 Af t er or al ar gument , t he gover nment f i l ed a 28( j ) l et t erat t achi ng t wo Puer t o Ri co cour t deci si ons exami ni ng t he val i di t y of

t he war r ant af f i davi t s at i ssue i n t hi s case. The l et t er r epor t st hat t he deci si ons r ef er ence mat er i al beyond t he f ace of t heaf f i davi t s i n f i ndi ng t hemsuppor t ed by pr obabl e cause. We decl i net o consi der t hese bel at edl y of f er ed mat er i al s, whi ch t he gover nmentdi d not di scuss or even r ef er ence bef or e or al ar gument i n t hi scase. See Uni t ed St at es v. Bar bour , 393 F. 3d 82, 94 ( 1st Ci r .2004) ( new i ssues or di nar i l y cannot be r ai sed i n 28( j ) l et t er s) .

-12-


13/31

t o t he of f ense. 4 But , agai n, t he af f i davi t does not provi de even

t hat much of a l i nk bet ween t he evi dence i dent i f i ed and t he cr i me

bei ng i nvest i gat ed. I nst ead, t he af f i davi t si mpl y st at es t hat

Agent Ramos' s bel i ef about what woul d be f ound i n Cordero' s

apar t ment i s " i n accor dance wi t h" hi s i nt er vi ew wi t h t he mi nor .

But an i nvest i gat i ng of f i cer ' s ot her wi se unsuppor t ed asser t i on t hat

evi dence of cr i mi nal act i vi t y wi l l t ur n up at a gi ven pl ace coul d

be " i n accor dance wi t h" an i nt er vi ew even i f t he i nt er vi ewee sai d

not hi ng at al l about t he mat er i al t hat t he of f i cer asser t s t o be

evi dence of an of f ense.

The Februar y 4 af f i davi t t hus predi cat es i t s

r epr esent at i ons about what woul d be f ound i n Cordero' s apart ment - -

and i t s r el at i on t o t he cri mi nal of f ense under i nvest i gat i on - -

sol el y on Agent Ramos' s asser t i on t hat , due t o hi s " i nvest i gat i on, "

he i s of t he vi ew t hat such mat er i al woul d be t her e and t hat i t

woul d const i t ut e "evi dence of t he of f ense. " And whi l e Agent Ramos

does r el ay t hat hi s i nvest i gat i on i ncl uded hi s i nt er vi ew wi t h t he

"i nj ur ed par t y, " he of f er s no ot her suppor t i ng f act s or det ai l s

about what he l ear ned f r omt hat i nt er vi ew, and t hus none t hat dr aw

t he l i nk between t he obj ect of t he sear ch - - t he home comput er

cont ai ni ng por nogr aphi c mat er i al - - and t he of f ense i t sel f .

4 But perhaps not . Even wi t h such a di r ect st atement aboutwhat t he mi nor had sai d, t he af f i davi t woul d st i l l not set f or t hany f act s di r ect l y to t he ef f ect t hat t he por nogr aphy had i n f actbeen used i n the cr i me.

-13-


14/31

The af f i davi t , i n ot her wor ds, was concl usor y as t o al l

t he key poi nt s concer ni ng nexus. And such a concl usory af f i davi t

i s pl ai nl y not suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t he necessar y pr obabl e

cause. Gat es, 462 U. S. at 239 ( not i ng t hat i ssui ng a war r ant

support ed by "mere concl usor y st atement t hat gi ves t he magi st r ate

vi r t ual l y no basi s at al l f or maki ng a j udgment r egar di ng pr obabl e

cause" woul d be cont r ar y t o r i ght s secur ed by the Four t h

Amendment ) ; Spi nel l i v. Uni t ed St at es, 393 U. S. 410, 418 ( 1969)

( "[ A] si mpl e asser t i on of pol i ce suspi ci on i s not i t sel f a

suf f i ci ent basi s f or a magi st r at e' s f i ndi ng of pr obabl e cause. ") ,

abr ogated on other gr ounds by Gates, 462 U. S. 213; Nathanson v.

Uni t ed St at es, 290 U. S. 41, 44- 47 ( 1933) ( af f i ant ' s s t at ement t hat

"he has cause t o suspect and does bel i eve t hat " l i quor i l l egal l y

br ought i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es was l ocat ed on cer t ai n pr emi ses was

i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a f i ndi ng of pr obabl e cause necessar y f or

t he i ssuance of war r ant ) ; Vi geant , 176 F. 3d at 569 ( war r ant

af f i davi t t hat cont ai ned "concl usor y st at ement s of t he af f i ant

t hat , " t hough t hey "mi ght ot her wi se have hel ped cr eate pr obabl e

cause, " wer e "ent i r el y wi t hout f act ual suppor t " f ai l ed t o suppor t

pr obabl e cause) .

The af f i davi t r el at i ng t o t he second search war r ant i s

even l ess det ai l ed. Thi s af f i davi t i s thus even l ess capabl e of

est abl i shi ng t he needed pr obabl e cause.

-14-


15/31

Fi l ed on Febr uar y 25, 2011, t he second af f i davi t st at ed

onl y as f ol l ows:

That as part of t he i nvest i gat i on of compl ai nt2011- 8- 316- 00841, on l ewd act i ons and pornogr aphy, on

Febr uar y 4, 2011, I car r i ed out a Sear ch War r ant , i ssuedby t he Honorabl e J udge Madel i ne Vega, agai nst t her esi dence l ocat ed i n apart ment 2704 of t he compl exJ ar di nes del Parque Escor i al , i n Car ol i na, wher e I sei zeda gr ey desk t op comput er t ower wi t h cl ear l i d on one ofi t s s i des, br and Gi gabyt e, ser i al number24ZFS- CA1ATS- 01R.

Cont i nui ng t he cour se of t hi s i nvest i gat i on, weunder st and t hat t her e i s i mpor t ant evi dence i n sai dr esi dence t hat was not obt ai ned i n t he f i r st sear ch,whereby we ver y r espect f ul l y r equest t hi s Honor abl e Cour tt o i ssue a Sear ch and/ or Sei zur e Warr ant agai nst t heabove- capt i oned r esi dence i ndi cat ed i n t he capt i on and i nt he cont ent of t hi s Swor n St at ement , i n al l i t sdependenci es and/ or i nsi de l evel s, i n sear ch of [ var i ousdi gi t al devi ces] .

Ot her t han i nf or mi ng t he magi st r at e j udge t hat Cor der o

was under i nvest i gat i on and t hat Corder o' s apar t ment had pr evi ousl y

been sear ched, t hi s af f i davi t pr ovi ded onl y t he bar e assert i on t hat

" i mpor t ant evi dence" woul d be f ound i n t he st ated l ocat i on. And

t he af f i davi t made t hat asser t i on wi t hout i dent i f yi ng any

f oundat i on f or t hat bel i ef or of f er i ng any cl ue as t o what t he

" i mport ant evi dence" mi ght be.

I n ot her wor ds, t he af f i davi t t ol d t he magi st r at e j udge

not hi ng mor e than t hat t her e was an ongoi ng i nvest i gat i on of t he

person whose pr emi ses were t o be searched, t hat t he pr emi ses had

been sear ched bef ore, and t hat t he pol i ce bel i eved somethi ng of

i mport ance woul d be f ound i f t he pl ace were sear ched agai n. The

-15-


16/31

aut hor i t y we have al r eady ci t ed, est abl i shi ng t hat concl usor y

asser t i ons i n an af f i davi t f r om l aw enf or cement cannot suppl y the

ki nd of pr obabl e cause needed t o secur e a war r ant , suf f i ces t o

demonst r at e t he const i t ut i onal i nadequacy of t hi s second war r ant

af f i davi t as wel l .

B.

The gover nment r esponds t hat , "even assumi ng ar guendo

t hat t he evi dence was sei zed pur suant t o an i nval i d war r ant , " t he

pol i ce st i l l acted i n good f ai t h i n r el yi ng on t he war r ant s t he

Puer t o Ri co magi st r at e j udge had i ssued. Appel l ee Br . 20- 21.

Under t hi s "good f ai t h" except i on t o t he excl usi onar y r ul e - - t he

appl i cabi l i t y of whi ch we revi ew de novo, 5 see Uni t ed St at es v.

McMul l i n, 568 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) - - t he evi dence f r om an

i l l egal sear ch need not be suppr essed i f t he pol i ce of f i cer who

conduct ed t he sear ch "act ed i n obj ect i vel y reasonabl e r el i ance on

a sear ch war r ant , i ssued by a neut r al and det ached Magi st r ate, t hat

l at er was det er mi ned t o be i nval i d. " Ar i zona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1,

11 ( 1995) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 919- 20

( 1984) ( " [ W] her e the of f i cer ' s conduct i s obj ect i vel y reasonabl e,

' excl udi ng t he evi dence wi l l not f ur t her t he ends of t he

excl usi onar y rul e i n any appr eci abl e way' " ( quot i ng St one v.

Powel l , 428 U. S. 465, 539- 40 ( 1976) ( Whi t e, J . , di ssent i ng) ) ) .

5 Because i t f ound both warr ant s support ed by pr obabl e cause,t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not r each t he i ssue of whet her t he goodf ai t h doct r i ne appl i ed.

-16-


17/31

Here, however , Agent Ramos was r el yi ng on warr ant s t hat

wer e const i t ut i onal l y i nadequat e because of hi s own f ai l ur e to

pr ovi de t he f act s i n t he af f i davi t s t hat coul d have suppor t ed t hei r

i ssuance. And, agai n, t he government does not ask us t o l ook

out si de the f our cor ner s of t he war r ant s and t he at t ached

af f i davi t s. We t hus do not see how, on t hi s r ecor d, t he good f ai t h

doct r i ne may per mi t an except i on t o t he excl usi onar y rul e.

Fr omal l t hat we can tel l , Agent Ramos sought t he war r ant

sol el y on t he basi s of hi s own concl usory asser t i ons. And t hose

asser t i ons, we add, do not even asser t a nexus bet ween t he obj ect

of t he sear ch and t he cr i me under i nvest i gat i on, l et al one pr ovi de

enough f act s t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause t o bel i eve such a nexus

exi st ed. I n such ci r cumst ances, t he pol i ce cannot be sai d t o be

act i ng r easonabl y i n t hen r el yi ng on a war r ant t hat r ef l ect s t hose

ver y same gl ar i ng def i ci enci es. See Leon, 468 U. S. at 899 ( "Nor

woul d an of f i cer mani f est obj ect i ve good f ai t h i n r el yi ng on a

war r ant based on an af f i davi t so l acki ng i n i ndi ci a of pr obabl e

cause as t o r ender of f i ci al bel i ef i n i t s exi st ence ent i r el y

unr easonabl e. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Owens, 167 F. 3d 739, 745 ( 1st

Ci r . 1999) ( si mi l ar ) . And t hat i s especi al l y so when t he

def i ci enci es ar i se f r om t he f ai l ur e of t he agent conduct i ng t he

sear ch t o pr ovi de t he r equi r ed suppor t i ng i nf or mat i on i n t he

af f i davi t . See 1 Wayne R. LaFave, Sear ch And Sei zur e: A Treat i se

On The Four t h Amendment 1. 3( f ) , at 91 (5t h ed. 2012) ( Leon does

-17-


18/31

"not al l ow l aw enf or cement aut hor i t i es t o r el y on an er r or of t hei r

own maki ng" ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Fucci l l o, 808 F. 2d 173, 178 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( "good f ai t h" except i on

not appl i cabl e wher e pol i ce "wer e r eckl ess i n not i ncl udi ng i n t he

af f i davi t i nf or mat i on whi ch was known or easi l y accessi bl e t o

t hem") . The good f ai t h except i on t o t he excl usi onar y r ul e t hus

does not appl y i n t hi s case.

C.

That br i ngs us t o t he gover nment ' s f i nal ar gument f or why

t he evi dence obt ai ned i n t he sear ches conduct ed by the Puert o Ri co

pol i ce shoul d not be suppr essed. Under t he so- cal l ed i nevi t abl e

di scover y doct r i ne, t he excl usi onar y r ul e does not bar t he use of

unl awf ul l y obt ai ned evi dence i n "any case i n whi ch t he pr osecut i on

can show by a preponder ance of t he evi dence t hat t he government

woul d have di scovered t he chal l enged evi dence even had t he

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on t o whi ch t he def endant obj ect s never

occur r ed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Scot t , 270 F. 3d 30, 42 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) .

The gover nment ar gues i t was i nevi t abl e t hat l aw

enf orcement event ual l y woul d l awf ul l y have di scover ed t he i mages of

chi l d pornogr aphy f ound on Cordero' s home comput er . To make t hi s

argument , t he government cont ends t hat t he pol i ce woul d have

i nevi t abl y di scover ed t he mat er i al at i ssue i n t hi s case "i n

-18-


19/31

sear chi ng t he comput er l ocat ed i n [ Cor der o] ' s home. " Appel l ee Br .

19.

That may wel l be t r ue - - i f , t hat i s, t he Puer t o Ri co

pol i ce or t he f ederal agent s woul d have possessed t he comput er at

al l . But wi t h r egar d t o why i t was i nevi t abl e t hat , even absent

t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce' s unconst i t ut i onal sear ches, t he comput er

woul d have been acqui r ed, t he government makes no ar gument . Yet i t

i s t hat expl anat i on t hat t he gover nment must suppl y i f i t wi shes t o

r el y on t he i nevi t abl e di scover y doct r i ne her e, as i t i s t he

comput er t hat was obt ai ned on t he basi s of an i nsuf f i ci ent l y

support ed warr ant .

Thi s case i s t her ef or e di st i ngui shabl e f r omUni t ed St at es

v. Cr espo- R os, 645 F. 3d 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , on whi ch t he

gover nment r el i es f or i t s i nevi t abl e di scover y ar gument . I n

Cr espo- R os, i t was " not di sput ed" t hat t her e exi st ed pr obabl e

cause t o suppor t t he sear ch of t he def endant ' s comput er . 645 F. 3d

at 42- 43. Her e, by cont r ast , t he war r ant s on whi ch t he Puer t o Ri co

pol i ce r el i ed i n acqui r i ng t he comput er wer e l egal l y def i ci ent .

Accordi ngl y, we have no basi s f or concl udi ng t hat t he government

can meet i t s bur den of sat i sf yi ng t he i nevi t abl e di scover y t est .

See Uni t ed St at es v. I nf ant e- Rui z, 13 F. 3d 498, 503 ( 1st Ci r . 1994)

( r ej ect i ng an i nevi t abl e di scover y ar gument where t he government

had not shown t hat , absent t he Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on, " t he

-19-


20/31

of f i cer coul d have t aken ' l egi t i mat e cust ody' " of t he vehi cl e i n

whi ch t he evi dence was f ound) .

D.

As a r esul t of t he f or egoi ng anal ysi s, we hol d t hat t he

Puert o Ri co pol i ce' s Febr uary 4 and Febr uary 26 sear ches were

undert aken i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h Amendment and that no

except i on t o t he excl usi onar y rul e appl i es t o evi dence t hat was

obt ai ned onl y dur i ng t hose t wo sear ches. Much of t he evi dence

agai nst Cor der o, however , i ncl udi ng t he evi dence speci f i cal l y

descr i bed i n hi s condi t i onal pl ea agr eement , was f ound i n a

"subsequent f or ensi c exami nat i on" af t er f eder al agent s became

i nvol ved i n t he case. We t hus must consi der whether t he f ederal

agent s' i nvest i gat or y ef f or t s pr ovi de a separ at e basi s f or t he use

of such evi dence agai nst Cor der o. And t hat br i ngs us t o Cor der o' s

f i nal cont ent i on.

III.

I n seeki ng t o suppr ess al l of t he evi dence t hat t he

f ederal agent s obt ai ned pur suant t o t he exami nat i on of t he home

comput er and t he ot her el ect r oni c devi ces t hat hi s t hen- wi f e

per mi t t ed t he aut hor i t i es t o exami ne, Cor der o of f er s t wo di st i nct

argument s. We now consi der t hose argument s i n t urn. 6

6 I n chal l engi ng t he ef f ect i veness of D. M. C. ' s consent f orpur poses of i nt r oduci ng t he evi dence t o whi ch i t l ed, Cor der o doesnot cont est i n t hi s appeal t hat D. M. C. ' s consent was vol unt ar y.

-20-


21/31

A.

Cor der o' s f i r st ar gument i s t hat hi s t hen- wi f e' s consent

di d not suf f i ce t o per mi t t he f eder al aut hor i t i es' sear ch because

t he f eder al aut hor i t i es nei t her sought nor r ecei ved consent f r om

Cor der o hi msel f . I n maki ng t hi s ar gument , Cor der o r ecogni zes t hat

D. M. C. , as hi s wi f e at t he t i me, "possesse[ d] common aut hor i t y over

[ t hei r ] . . . ef f ect s" and was t hus capabl e of consent i ng t o a

sear ch of such i t ems. See Geor gi a v. Randol ph, 547 U. S. 103, 108

( 2006) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Mat l ock, 415 U. S. 164, 170

( 1974) ) . I n gener al , "when t he pr osecut i on seeks t o j ust i f y a

war r ant l ess sear ch by pr oof of vol unt ar y consent , i t i s not l i mi t ed

t o pr oof t hat consent was gi ven by t he def endant . " Mat l ock, 415

U. S. at 171. I nst ead, " t he consent of one who possesses common

aut hor i t y over pr emi ses or ef f ect s" gener al l y "i s val i d as agai nst

t he absent , nonconsent i ng per son wi t h whom t hat aut hor i t y i s

shar ed. " I d. ; see al so i d. at 169- 77 ( al l owi ng admi ssi on of

evi dence f ound i n a di aper bag i n a bedr oom cl oset f ol l owi ng a

sear ch conduct ed pur suant t o t he consent of one wi t h common

aut hor i t y over t he bedr oom) .

Thi s r ul e f ol l ows because, as t he Supreme Cour t has

expl ai ned, common aut hor i t y "r est s . . . on mut ual use of t he

pr oper t y by per sons gener al l y havi ng j oi nt access or cont r ol f or

most pur poses. " I d. at 171 n. 7. I n consequence, i t i s " r easonabl e

t o recogni ze t hat any of t he co- i nhabi t ant s has t he ri ght t o per mi t

-21-


22/31

t he i nspect i on i n hi s own r i ght and t hat t he ot her s have assumed

t he r i sk t hat one of t hei r number mi ght permi t t he common area t o

be sear ched. " I d.

But Cordero cont ends t hat even t hough D. M. C. apparent l y

had "common aut hor i t y" over t he comput er and other el ect r oni c

devi ces t hat t he f eder al aut hor i t i es exami ned, hi s t hen- wi f e' s

consent st i l l coul d not subst i t ut e f or hi s own because he "was f r ee

on bai l and avai l abl e at t hat t i me. " Appel l ant Br . 48. Cor der o

t hus argues t hat t he evi dence t he f eder al aut hor i t i es obt ai ned

pur suant t o D. M. C. ' s consent must be suppr essed because, on t he

f act s of t hi s case, her consent was no subst i t ut e f or hi s.

But t hi s i s not t he l aw. Under Geor gi a v. Randol ph, " i f

a pot ent i al def endant wi t h sel f - i nt er est i n obj ect i ng i s i n f act at

t he door and obj ect s, t he co- t enant ' s per mi ssi on does not suf f i ce

f or a r easonabl e sear ch. " 547 U. S. at 121. By cont r ast , " t he

pot ent i al obj ect or , near by but not i nvi t ed t o t ake par t i n t he

t hr eshol d col l oquy, l oses out . " I d.

Cor der o does argue t hat f eder al agent s, by goi ng di r ect l y

t o D. M. C. when he was not pr esent , ef f ect i vel y di d an end r un

ar ound Randol ph. That i s because, Cor der o i mpl i es, t he f eder al

agent s knew t hat he woul d have r ef used t o gi ve consent i f asked,

and t hus t hey avoi ded aski ng.

But t he Supr eme Cour t made cl ear i n Randol ph t hat even i f

a def endant wer e near by and avai l abl e t o gi ve consent , t he

-22-


23/31

aut hor i t i es wer e ent i t l ed t o seek out t he consent of hi s wi f e, as

she had common aut hor i t y. See i d. at 121- 22. And f ur t her , t he

Supreme Cour t made cl ear af t er Randol ph t hat l aw enf orcement

aut hor i t i es may pur sue t hi s same appr oach even when t he nearby

pot ent i al obj ect or has pr evi ousl y decl i ned t o gi ve consent . See

Fer nandez v. Cal i f or ni a, 134 S. Ct . 1126, 1133- 34 ( 2014) ( not i ng

t hat J ust i ce Br eyer pr ovi ded t he "deci si ve" f i f t h vot e f or t he

maj or i t y i n Randol ph, and st r essi ng t hat t he Cour t ' s opi ni on i n

Randol ph "went t o gr eat l engt hs t o make cl ear t hat i t s hol di ng was

l i mi t ed t o si t uat i ons i n whi ch t he obj ect i ng occupant i s pr esent ") ;

see al so Randol ph, 547 U. S. at 126 ( Br eyer , J . , concur r i ng) ( "The

Cour t ' s opi ni on does not appl y wher e t he obj ect or i s not pr esent

' and obj ect [ i ng] . ' " ( quot i ng Randol ph, 547 U. S. at 121 ( maj or i t y

opi ni on) ) ) . Thus, Cor der o' s mer e avai l abi l i t y - - and asser t ed

i ncl i nat i on t o obj ect t o a sear ch i f asked - - pr ovi des no basi s f or

not gi vi ng ef f ect t o hi s t hen- wi f e' s act ual consent .

B.

Cor der o' s second gr ound f or ar gui ng t hat t he evi dence

obt ai ned pur suant t o D. M. C. ' s consent must be suppr essed has more

f or ce. Accor di ng t o Cor der o, t he f eder al gover nment sought t o

obt ai n hi s t hen- wi f e' s consent onl y due t o a t i p f r om Puer t o Ri co

pol i ce t hat was i t sel f t he r esul t of t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce' s pr i or

unl awf ul sear ches. Cor der o t hus cont ends t hat t he evi dence f eder al

aut hor i t i es obt ai ned pur suant t o t he consent - based exami nat i ons was

-23-


24/31

necessar i l y "t ai nt ed" by the ear l i er unl awf ul sear ches t hat t he

Puer t o Ri co pol i ce conduct ed. And, f or t hat r eason, Cor der o

ar gues, al l such evi dence must be suppr essed as i l l egal " f r ui t s" of

t hose pr i or unconst i t ut i onal sear ches.

I n gener al , "[ t ] he i ndi r ect f r ui t s of an i l l egal sear ch

or ar r est shoul d be suppr essed when t hey bear a suf f i ci ent l y cl ose

r el at i onshi p t o t he under l yi ng i l l egal i t y. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Camacho, 661 F. 3d 718, 729 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng New Yor k v.

Har r i s, 495 U. S. 14, 19 ( 1990) ) . By cont r ast , "[ s] uppr essi on i s

not appr opr i at e . . . i f ' t he connect i on bet ween t he i l l egal pol i ce

conduct and t he di scover y and sei zur e of t he evi dence i s so

at t enuat ed as t o di ssi pat e t he t ai nt . ' " I d. ( quot i ng Segur a v.

Uni t ed St at es, 468 U. S. 796, 805 ( 1984) ) .

"The not i on of t he ' di ssi pat i on of t he t ai nt ' at t empt s t o

mar k t he poi nt at whi ch t he det r i ment al consequences of i l l egal

pol i ce act i on become so at t enuat ed t hat t he det er r ent ef f ect of t he

excl usi onar y r ul e no l onger j ust i f i es i t s cost . " Br own v.

I l l i noi s, 422 U. S. 590, 609 ( 1975) ( Powel l , J . concur r i ng) ; see

al so Segur a, 468 U. S. at 804 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he excl usi onar y rul e

"' ext ends as wel l t o t he i ndi r ect as t he di r ect pr oduct s' of

unconst i t ut i onal conduct " ( quot i ng Wong Sun v. Uni t ed St at es, 371

U. S. 471, 484 ( 1963) ) ) . I n a si mi l ar vei n, t he Supr eme Cour t has

suggest ed t hat t he key i nqui r y i n cases seeki ng t o suppr ess t he

i ndi r ect f r ui t s of pr i or i l l egal l aw enf or cement conduct concer ns

-24-


25/31

"whet her , gr ant i ng est abl i shment of t he pr i mar y i l l egal i t y, t he

evi dence t o whi ch i nst ant obj ect i on i s made has been come at by

expl oi t at i on of t hat i l l egal i t y or i nst ead by means suf f i ci ent l y

di st i ngui shabl e t o be pur ged of t he pr i mar y t ai nt . " Wong Sun, 371

U. S. at 488 ( quot i ng J ohn MacAr t hur Magui r e, Evi dence of Gui l t 221

( 1959) ) .

The cl ass i c case present i ng t hi s t ype of i ssue ar i ses

af t er a def endant seeks t o suppr ess hi s conf ess i on on t he gr ound

t hat he made i t f ol l owi ng some pr i or unl awf ul sear ch or sei zur e.

See, e. g. , Har r i s, 495 U. S. at 16- 17 ( def endant made an i ncul pat or y

st at ement at a pol i ce st at i on af t er t he pol i ce had vi ol at ed t he

Four t h Amendment by enter i ng t he def endant ' s home wi t hout a war r ant

and wi t hout hi s consent ) ; Br own, 422 U. S. at 592 (def endant made

i ncul pat or y st at ement s af t er bei ng ar r est ed wi t hout pr obabl e cause

or war r ant ) . And, i n such a case, a number of consi der at i ons ar e

or di nar i l y r el evant t o t he t ai nt i nqui r y - - namel y, ( 1) t he t i me

t hat el apsed bet ween t he under l yi ng i l l egal i t y and t he l at er

acqui si t i on of t he evi dence at i ssue; ( 2) t he pr esence or absence

of i nt erveni ng ci r cumst ances bet ween t hose poi nt s i n t i me; and ( 3)

t he pur pose and f l agr ancy of t he of f i ci al mi sconduct i n quest i on.

Br own, 422 U. S. at 603- 04; accord Camacho, 661 F. 3d at 729.

I n our case, t he f eder al aut hor i t i es obt ai ned t he di gi t al

evi dence agai nst Cor der o f ol l owi ng t he consent of hi s t hen- wi f e t o

exami ne var i ous el ect r oni c devi ces t aken f r omhi s home. Accor di ng

-25-


26/31

t o t he gover nment , t he f act t hat t he f eder al agent s' exami nat i on of

t he el ect r oni c devi ces was pr emi sed on t he t hen- wi f e' s vol unt ar y

consent ef f ect i vel y i mmuni zes f r om suppr essi on t he evi dence t hey

obt ai ned as a r esul t .

We di sagr ee. I n Uni t ed St ates v. NavedoCol n, we hel d

t hat cour t s must determi ne whether t he causal l i nk between a pr i or

unl awf ul sear ch and consent ( vol unt ary t hough i t may have been) t o

a subsequent sear ch i s so t i ght t hat t he evi dence acqui r ed pur suant

t o t hat consent must be suppr essed. 7 996 F. 2d at 1339. I ndeed, we

emphasi zed the i mport ance of determi ni ng whether t he pr i or

i l l egal i t y "s i gni f i cant l y i nf l uenced" or "pl ayed a s i gni f i cant

r ol e" i n t he subsequent consent . Navedo- Col n, 996 F. 2d at 1339;

see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Mal donado- Espi nosa, 968 F. 2d 101, 103- 04

7 That hol di ng i s i n accor dance wi t h t he vi ews of near l y al l

t he ot her Ci r cui t s. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Mur phy, 703 F. 3d182, 190 ( 2d Ci r . 2012) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Hi l l , 649 F. 3d 258, 268-70 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Meece, 580 F. 3d 616, 619- 20( 7t h Ci r . 2009) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Al var ez- Manzo, 570 F. 3d 1070,1077 ( 8t h Ci r . 2009) ; Uni t ed St at es v. J aquez, 421 F. 3d 338, 341- 42( 5t h Ci r . 2005) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Washi ngt on, 387 F. 3d 1060, 1072-73 & n. 12 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Chant hasouxat , 342 F. 3d1271, 1280- 81 ( 11t h Ci r . 2003) . And, so f ar as we are aware, event he Tent h Ci r cui t - - whi ch pr evi ousl y had deci ded t hat" ' vol unt ar i ness' f or Four t h Amendment consent sat i sf i es t he WongSun st andar ds, " Uni t ed St at es v. Car son, 793 F. 2d 1141, 1150 ( 10t hCi r . 1986) - - now anal yzes t hi s i ssue as we do. See Uni t ed St at es

v. Mel endez- Gar ci a, 28 F. 3d 1046, 1054 ( 10t h Ci r . 1994) ( not i ngt hat Car son mi sst at ed t he l aw of t hat Ci r cui t , and "r ei t er at [ i ng]t hat not onl y must t he government show t hat consent i s vol unt ary i nf act , but i t must al so demonst r at e a br eak i n t he causal connect i onbet ween t he i l l egal i t y and t he consent ") ; see al so, e. g. , Uni t edSt at es v. Fox, 600 F. 3d 1253, 1257 ( 10t h Ci r . 2010) ( r el yi ng on andappl yi ng Mel endez- Gar ci a' s f r amewor k f or anal yzi ng t hi s i ssue) .

-26-


27/31

( 1st Ci r . 1992) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Race, 529 F. 2d 12, 15 ( 1st Ci r .

1976) . Of cour se, her e, unl i ke i n NavedoCol n, t he def endant i s

seeki ng t o suppr ess evi dence obt ai ned pur suant t o consent suppl i ed

not by hi msel f but by a t hi r d par t y - - namel y, t he def endant ' s

t hen- wi f e, D. M. C. See Navedo- Col n, 996 F. 2d at 1338. But t he

f act t hat t he pr i or unl awf ul sear ches by t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce l ed

t he f eder al aut hor i t i es t o a t hi r d par t y who then consent ed does

not i n and of i t sel f show t hat t he t ai nt and expl oi t at i on concer n

si mpl y di sappear s f r om vi ew, as our deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v.

Fi nucan, 708 F. 2d 838 ( 1st Ci r . 1983) , shows.

Ther e, t he def endant s - - a bookkeeper at a used car

deal er shi p and t he deal er shi p' s owner , r espect i vel y - - sought t o

suppr ess ( among ot her t hi ngs) evi dence obt ai ned f r omi nt er vi ews t he

aut hor i t i es conduct ed wi t h ot her car deal er s. Fi nucan, 708 F. 2d at

840- 41. Those i nt er vi ews t ook pl ace onl y af t er t he aut hor i t i es

conduct ed a pr evi ous unl awf ul sear ch of one of t he def endant s'

homes. I d. at 841- 43. I n ar gui ng agai nst t he suppr essi on of t he

evi dence obt ai ned f r omt he i nt er vi ews, t he gover nment cl ai med t hat

t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Ceccol i ni , 435

U. S. 268 ( 1978) , "pr ecl udes suppr ess i on of document ar y evi dence

l at er acqui r ed f r om t he deal er i nt er vi ews, " because "t he Cour t i n

Ceccol i ni decl i ned t o t r eat a wi t ness' s vol unt ar y t est i mony as

der i vat i ve of an i l l egal sear ch or sei zur e. " Fi nucan, 708 F. 2d at

-27-


28/31

843; see al so Ceccol i ni , 435 U. S. at 277- 88. But we r ej ect ed t hat

cont ent i on.

We expl ai ned t hat Ceccol i ni "st r ess[ ed] our adver sary

system' s pr ef er ence f or l i ve t est i mony, " a f act or not pr esent ed by

a case seeki ng "not r ej ect i on of l i ve t est i mony but r at her

suppr essi on of document s obt ai ned f r om t hi r d par t i es. " Fi nucan,

708 F. 2d at 843; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Hughes, 279 F. 3d 86, 89

( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he Supr eme Cour t "has been

especi al l y r el uct ant t o suppr ess . . . f r ui t s wher e t hey ar e not

obj ect s or document s but l i ve wi t nesses who coul d t est i f y

vol unt ar i l y and cast l i ght on a r ange of i ssues" ) . And t hus, we

expl ai ned, al t hough "t he i nt er veni ng r ol e of t hi r d par t i es shoul d

be consi dered i n determi ni ng whether document ary evi dence was

di scover ed i ndependent l y of an i l l egal sear ch or sei zur e, i t i s but

one of t he f act or s t o be wei ghed. " 8 Fi nucan, 708 F. 2d at 843- 44

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

8 Al t hough we di d not make t he poi nt i n Fi nucan, evenCeccol i ni decl i ned t o accept t he gover nment ' s i nvi t at i on t o adoptwhat amount ed t o "a per se r ul e t hat t he test i mony of a l i vewi t ness shoul d not be excl uded at t r i al no mat t er how cl ose andpr oxi mat e t he connect i on bet ween i t and a vi ol at i on of t he Four t hAmendment . " Ceccol i ni , 435 U. S. at 274- 75. The Cour t i nst eadexpl ai ned t hat al t hough i n some cases " t he i l l egal i t y whi ch l ed t o

t he di scover y" of t he t hi r d par t y who agr eed t o t est i f y at t hedef endant ' s t r i al may "not pl ay any meani ngf ul par t i n t he wi t ness'wi l l i ngness" t o appear , t hat mi ght not al ways be t he case. I d. at277. Ceccol i ni t hus exami ned what r ol e t he i l l egal sear ches thathad been conduct ed by the l ocal pol i ce i n t hat case pl ayed i nl eadi ng t he f eder al aut hor i t i es t o t he wi t ness whose test i mony t hedef endant sought t o excl ude. See i d. at 273- 80.

-28-


29/31

Among the f act ors we deemed r el evant t o t he suppr essi on

i ssue i n Fi nucan was whet her , " [ a] bsent t he i l l egal sear ch, t he

i nvest i gat or s [ woul d] have known t he i dent i t y of al l of t he t hi r d

par t i es [ or ] what t o ask t hem. " I d. at 844. I n t hat r egar d, we

consi dered whet her " t he gover nment ant i ci pat ed t hat t he i l l egal

sear ch woul d hel p l ead i t t o t he ot her deal ers and document s, " and

whether " t he t hi r d part i es woul d have come f orward on thei r own had

t he i nvest i gat or s not sought t hem out . " I d.

Wi t h t hi s pr ecedent i n pl ace, t he success of Cor der o' s

suppr essi on mot i on t ur ns on whether t he evi dence obt ai ned pur suant

t o D. M. C. ' s vol unt ar y consent was t ai nt ed by the pr i or unl awf ul

sear ches by t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce. But t hat i nqui r y, as we have

pr evi ousl y sai d, i s necessar i l y hi ghl y f act dependent and

"amor phous. " Hughes, 279 F. 3d at 89. The r el evant consi der at i ons

mi ght i ncl ude the ones we f ocused on i n Fi nucan, as wel l as t he

t hr ee f act or s Br own ar t i cul at ed, whi ch cour t s have appl i ed i n cases

i nvol vi ng mot i ons t o suppr ess al l egedl y t ai nt ed evi dence acqui r ed

pur suant t o t hi r d par t i es gr ant i ng consent t o sear ches. See, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. Hi l l , 649 F. 3d 258, 267- 68 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) ; see

al so St at e v. Lane, 726 N. W. 2d 371, 380- 92 ( I owa 2007) ( di scussi ng

numer ous consi der at i ons i n addi t i on t o the Br own f act or s i n f r ui t

of t he poi sonous t r ee case i nvol vi ng t hi r d- par t y consent ) .

Bal anci ng t hese f act or s wi l l i l l umi nat e t he ext ent of at t enuat i on

-29-


30/31

i n t hi s case, and, al ong wi t h i t , t he det er r ence val ue of excl udi ng

evi dence der i ved f r om D. M. C. ' s consent .

Because the i nqui r y "r equi r e[ s] t he par t i cul ar

ci r cumst ances of [ t he] case to dr i ve t he anal ysi s, " Lane, 726

N. W. 2d at 383, we decl i ne t o under t ake i t now. The Di st r i ct Cour t

never consi der ed any of t he r el evant f act or s - - or made f i ndi ngs

wi t h r espect t o t hem- - f or t he si mpl e r eason t hat i t hel d t hat t he

sear ches by t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce di d not vi ol at e t he Four t h

Amendment . Thus, we l ack suf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on t o det er mi ne

whet her D. M. C. ' s consent was obt ai ned by expl oi t at i on of t he

under l yi ng i l l egal i t y. As those ar e f act s that may be di scer ni bl e

i n an evi dent i ary hear i ng, we thus vacat e and r emand so t he

Di st r i ct Cour t i n t he f i r st i nst ance may consi der t he f act or s t hat

Br own and Fi nucan i dent i f y.

IV.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we vacat e t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

suppr essi on r ul i ng. On r emand, i f t he Di st r i ct Cour t shoul d f i nd

t hat t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce' s unl awf ul sear ches di d not t ai nt t he

f eder al aut hor i t i es' consent - based sear ch, t hen t he Di st r i ct Cour t

must deci de whi ch, i f any, of t he government ' s evi dence st emmed

sol el y f r om t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce' s sear ches. I f , however , t he

Di st r i ct Cour t shoul d deci de t he t ai nt i ssue i n Cor der o' s f avor ,

t hen t he Di st r i ct Cour t must deci de whi ch, i f any, evi dence t he

government seeks t o i nt r oduce must be suppressed i n consequence of

-30-


31/31

t hat t ai nt ed r el at i onshi p. But gi ven t hat t hose ar e i ssues about

whi ch we l ack suf f i ci ent f act s t o det er mi ne, t he Di st r i ct Cour t

shoul d onl y deci de t hem f ol l owi ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t he

mat t er .

-31-

Documents

United States v. Cordero-Rosario, 1st Cir. (2015)