United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER RE DEFENDANT FLORES’ MOTION TO SUPPRESS
FRUITS OF UNLAWFUL DETENTION AND DEFENDANT JIMENEZ’S
MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND REQUEST TO JOIN IN
DEFENDANT FLORES’ MOTION (DOC. NOS. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
AND 39)
Defendants
Luis Flores, Armando Martinez-Tinoco, Juan Martinez-Tinoco,
and Ivan Jimenez are each charged in the indictment returned
in this case with: (1) conspiracy to manufacture, to
distribute and/or to possess with the intent to distribute
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(C) and 846; (2) manufacture of marijuana and aiding
and abetting the same in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; (3)
possession with the intent to distribute marijuana and aiding
and abetting the same in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and (4)
depredation of public lands and resources and aiding and
abetting the same in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 1361
and 2. (Doc. No. 23.)
On
February 1, 2016, counsel on behalf of defendant Flores filed
a motion to suppress the alleged unlawful detention and
arrest of his client on October 16, 2015 as well as the
fruits thereof. (Doc. No. 35.)[1] Defendants Juan Martinez-Tinoco
and Armando Martinez-Tinoco joined in that motion. (Doc. No.
37 and 38.) On February 8, 2016, counsel on behalf of
defendant Jimenez filed a motion to suppress statements
attributed to Jimenez by law enforcement agents on the
grounds that the statements were obtained in violation of
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Counsel on
behalf of defendant Jimenez requested an evidentiary hearing
in connection with the motion to suppress his statement.
(Doc. No. 39.) Defendant Jimenez also joined in defendant
Flores’ motion to suppress. (Id.)
On
April 8, 2016, the court held a hearing on the motions and to
determine whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary to
their resolution. (Doc. No. 50.) Assistant U.S. Attorney
Karen Escobar appeared at the hearing on behalf of the
government. Attorney Gary Huss appeared on behalf of
defendant Flores, attorney Peter Jones appeared on behalf of
defendant Armando Martinez-Tinoco, attorney Daniel Harralson
appeared on behalf of defendant Juan Martinez-Tinoco and
Assistant Federal Defender Janet Bateman appeared on behalf
of defendant Jimenez. (Id.) At the hearing, counsel
for each of the parties agreed that no evidentiary hearing
was necessary in order to resolve the pending
motions.[2] The court then heard oral argument and
took the motion under submission for decision.
I. The
Evidence
Counsel
for defendant Flores filed a declaration signed under penalty
of perjury in support of the motion to suppress the fruits of
the alleged unlawful detention and arrest of Flores and his
two co-defendants. (Doc. No. 36.) That declaration included
as exhibits the sworn affidavit of U.S. Forest Service Agent
Brian Adams in support of the criminal complaint and arrest
warrants for defendants Flores, Armando Martinez-Tinoco and
Juan Martinez-Tinoco dated October 16, 2015 as well as
reports prepared by the investigating officers.
(Id.) Defendant Jimenez filed his own declaration.
(Doc. No. 39-1.) In support of their opposition to the
pending motions the government filed two declarations by
Agent Adams. (Doc. Nos. 41-1 and 42-2.) In reply, defendants
filed supplemental declarations by counsel for defendant Juan
Martinez-Tinoco as well as his defense investigator. (Doc.
Nos. 54 and 55.) Collectively, these declarations and the
documents attached thereto as exhibits reflect the following.
On
October 15, 2015, United States Forest Service
(“USFS”) Special Agents Brian Adams and B. Smith
along with K. Shaw, a warden with the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife, discovered a marijuana grow site in the
Sequoia National Forest in Tulare County. (Doc. No. 36, at 6
and 17.) As the three walked through the grow site, Warden
Smith yelled “Runners!” and Agent Adams saw
subjects running up a steep hillside in the opposite
direction. (Id.) Agent Adams ran after the suspects
but stopped after seeing a large campsite with numerous tents
and tarped areas in order to ensure there were no armed
suspects in the camp. (Id.) After doing so, Agent
Adams then continued after the nearest subject.
(Id.) Warden Shaw was closer to that subject than
Agent Adams and Adams could see Shaw running through the
trees. (Id.) The three officers soon lost sight of
the fleeing subjects and were also becoming separated from
one another. (Id.) Accordingly, Agent Adams called
off the search for the subjects. (Id.) The three
officers returned to the campsite and collected evidence and
destroyed the excess marijuana and camping equipment.
(Id. at 7-8 and 17-18.) Neither Agent Adam’s
later affidavit in support of the complaint and arrest
warrants nor the officers’ investigative reports
contained a description of the subjects who had fled the grow
site.
On
October 16, 2015, USFS Officer J. Norris reported that a
citizen had contacted him to report suspicious activity.
(Id. at 8 and 18.) Specifically, the citizen
reported that:
[T]hree Hispanic male subjects [were] sitting near his gate
on the Lloyd Meadow Road at 7:00 a.m. This area is
approximately a six hour walk from the grow site. The
subjects were described as being wet and dirty. The subjects
did not have any camping gear or backpacks with them. The
subjects asked the citizen for assistance. The three subjects
were given a ride to Sierra Gateway Market in Kernville and
dropped off. The citizen reported that the subjects purchased
new clothing and other items. The citizen said two of the
subjects were older and spoke only Spanish and one of the
subjects was younger and spoke English. One of the subjects
was reported to be named “Luis.”
(Id. at 8.)
Agent
Adams responded to the Sierra Gateway Market and “was
advised by the clerk that three subjects matching the
citizen’s description were dropped off at the store by
a man who said he found them in the mountains. The store
clerk said the subjects walked south from the store after
purchasing the items and he lost sight of them. The clerk
said they bought tourist-type clothing that said ‘Kern
River’ on the shirts.” (Id. at 8 and
18.) Agent Adams began checking roads, restaurants, and
motels in the area looking for the three subjects.
(Id.) The desk clerk of the Pine Cone Inn advised
him that three subjects matching the description set forth
above had just checked into room two. (Id.) After
calling for assistance, Agent Adams did not wait for that
assistance but instead proceeded to knocked on the door of
room two. (Id.)
Agent
Adams reported that when he did so:
A younger Hispanic male, later identified verbally by the
male as Luis Enrique Flores, opened the door. Flores was
wearing a blue shirt that said “Kern River” on
the front. I asked Flores if he had been in the mountains and
he said yes. I could smell the odor of campfire smoke
emanating from Flores. I asked the man what he was doing and
he said camping near a very large rock. I could see no
camping gear in the room and was previously advised by the
reporting citizen that the three men had no gear with them
when he encountered them. It was very cold and rainy in the
mountains on the previous day and night and it would have
been difficult and dangerous to be camping in that
environment with no equipment. I told the man I knew he was
in a marijuana grow and that he had run from me and other
officers on the previous day. Flores denied the accusation. I
could see another, older man, later identified by a Mexican
identification card as Juan Carlos Martinez-Tinoco sitting on
a bed in the room. The man was very similar in appearance to
the man Warden Shaw and I had chased on the previous day. I
told Juan Martinez I recognized him from the marijuana grow
when he ran from me and he nervously denied he was there. I
asked where the third subject was and both Flores and Juan
Martinez said he was in the shower. Both Flores and Juan
Martinez were looking nervously at each other and Flores was
laughing nervously when I mentioned the marijuana grow site.
I asked the Flores if he would step outside of the hotel room
and talked to me and he complied. Flores continued to deny
being in a marijuana grow. I told Flores I was handcuffing
him for my safety and placed him in handcuffs. I then asked
Flores and Juan Martinez if I could enter the room and I was
told I could enter. I had Flores lay on the bed and asked
Juan Martinez to stay seated. I told both men they were not
under arrest, but Flores was handcuffed for my safety. I told
Flores I would take off the handcuffs when additional units
arrived on scene. The third man came out of the shower
approximately five minutes later and I asked him to sit in a
chair. The man complied. The third man identified himself as
Armando Arnoldo Martinez. I told Armando Martinez he was not
under arrest. All three subjects kept trying to make
statements to me but I told them not to talk at that time.
Additional units arrived several minutes later and I took the
handcuffs off of Flores. Warden Shaw arrived on scene and saw
Juan Martinez and said he was positive Juan Martinez was the
man he was chasing in the grow site on the previous day,
confirming my observation. Juan Martinez looked at Warden
Shaw and smiled and said he remembered him.
(Id. at 8-9.)[3]
Agent
Adams then separately read Flores, Juan Martinez-Tinoco, and
Armando Martinez-Tinoco their Miranda rights.
(Id. at 10-11 and 19.) Each of the three stated that
they understood their rights, agreed to waive their rights,
and individually made statements confirming their connection
to the grow site. (Id.)
On
October 17, 2015, Officer Norris received a call at
approximately 1:00 p.m. from Tulare County Sherriff’s
Deputy B. Minor regarding a Hispanic male subject in his
twenties or early thirties who had been given a ride from the
Lower Durwood Lodge in Tulare County to the McNally Ranch in
Lake Isabella. (Id. at 20.) Deputy Minor had
received a call from the owner of the lodge reporting that a
subject had been dropped off at the R Ranch in Johnsondale
and then taken to the Lower Durwood Lodge. (Id.) The
subject had reportedly been separated from his friends and
lost in the woods with no water or food after raccoons had
eaten his food. (Id.) The subject was also
reportedly carrying a blue bag and what appeared to be a
bedroll. (Id.) R Ranch is three miles from the
location where defendants Flores, Juan Martinez-Tinoco, and
Armando Martinez-Tinoco had been first contacted the day
before. (Id.) Also on the day before, Officer Norris
saw a subject matching this same description walking south
along the Lloyd Meadow Road in the area of Lower Peppermint
Campground, but did not stop because he was en route to
eradicate the grow site. (Id.) Lower Peppermint
Campground is approximately three miles from the grow site.
(Id.)
On
October 17, 2015, at approximately 1:12 p.m., Officer Norris
called the McNally Ranch and spoke to a person identified as
Brian. Brian said that a person had been dropped off at his
ranch by Dee from the Lower Durwood Lodge. Brian said that
this person told him he became separated from three of his
friends while hiking. This person also said he was trying to
get back to West Covina where he lived. Brian assisted the
person by sending him to work with one of his plumbers so
that he could make some money to get home. (Id.)
At
approximately 1:34 p.m., Officer Norris advised Agent Adams
that he had seen a subject matching the description given by
Brian and Deputy Minor walking north on Navajo Drive.
(Id. at 20-21.) Norris said that this was the same
subject he had seen walking near Lower Peppermint Campground
on the previous day. (Id. at 21.) The subject had a
camouflage colored jacket. (Id.) Norris contacted
the subject and detained him. (Id.) Agent Adams
arrived at the intersection of Navajo Drive and Highway 178
approximately one minute after the subject had been detained
by Officer Norris. (Id.) Agent Adams describes what
took place thereafter as follows:
I contacted the subject and identified him verbally as Ivan
De Jesus Jimenez. I identified myself to him and told him he
was not under arrest but was being detained. Jimenez spoke
English. Using a ruse, I told Jimenez I recognized him as one
of the men I had chased in the marijuana grow site on October
15, 2015. I explained the reason for our contact and he
spontaneously said he and the other subjects ran from the
grow site because they were afraid and he had been lost and
was trying to find his way home. I stopped him and asked him
not to say anything further. I did not ask Jimenez any
questions or otherwise prompt any response from him. We then
placed Jimenez in handcuffs and transported him to the Kern
Valley Sherriff’s Substation in Lake Isabella for
further investigation. Officer Norris went to 5115 Shawnee
and recovered the blue bag and bedroll that Jimenez had left
there.
(Id. at 21.)
Once at
the substation, Agent Adams read defendant Jimenez his
Miranda rights. Jimenez stated he understood his
rights, waived then, and gave an inculpatory recorded
statement connecting himself to the grow site. (Id.)
II.
Discussion
1. The
Detention of Defendants Flores, Juan Martinez-Tinoco, and
Armando Martinez-Tinoco
Defendant
Flores argues in summary fashion that the scope and duration
of his detention by Agent Adams at the Pine Cone Inn was
“unreasonable under the circumstances, and that the
fruits of that unlawful detention” should therefore be
suppressed. (Doc. No. 35 at 4.) Flores briefly contends that
his detention was unjustified prolonged and turned into a de
facto arrest when he was handcuffed outside his hotel room
and then told to lay down on the bed inside his room while
Agent Adams waited for other officers to arrive in response
to his call for assistance. (Id. at 6-7.) Finally,
defendant Flores asserts that there was no probable cause or
even articulable facts to justify the initiation of his
detention, its prolongation or his arrest and that as a
result the fruits thereof should all be suppressed.
(Id. at 7.) Defendants Juan Martinez-Tinoco and
Armando Martinez-Tinoco have joined in the motion and the
arguments made in support thereof. (Doc. Nos. 37 and
38.)[4]
a.
Seizure
A
police officer may initiate a brief investigatory detention
based on a reasonable suspicion that the individual detained
has committed or is in the process of committing a crime.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). However,
“[t]he Fourth Amendment prohibits ‘unreasonable
searches and seizures’ by the Government, and its
protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons .
. . that fall short of traditional arrest.” United
States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). A seizure
within the scope of the Fourth Amendment is not automatically
found each time a police officer approaches an individual and
asks questions. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429,
434 (1991). No seizure under the Fourth Amendment takes place
so long as a reasonable person would feel free “to
disregard the police and go about his business.”
California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621, 628 (1991).
See also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544,
554 (1980) (“[A] person has been ‘seized’
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view
of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a
reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to
leave.”); United States v. McClendon, 713 F.3d
1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 2013). However, once an encounter loses
its consensual nature, the Fourth Amendment is triggered.
Hodari, 499 U.S. at 628. To measure the consensual
nature of an encounter, courts have found that “[o]nly
when the officer, by means of physical force or show of
authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a
citizen may we conclude that a ‘seizure’ has
occurred.” Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434 (quoting
Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 n. 16). See also Brendlin
v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254 (2007);
McClendon, 713 F.3d at 1215.
In this
case, defendant Flores was obviously not free to leave the
room at the inn when Agent Adams handcuffed him and
instructed him to lie on the bed. Likewise, defendants Juan
Martinez-Tinoco and Armando Martinez-Tinoco were not free to
leave the room when Agent Adams instructed them to be seated
after he had placed Flores in handcuffs. A reasonable person
would not have felt free to leave the hotel room under these
circumstances. Moreover, Agent Adams demonstrated his
authority by falsely asserting that he recognized Flores and
Juan Martinez-Tinoco as having fled from the marijuana grow
site the day before, directing Juan Martinez-Tinoco and
Armando Martinez-Tinoco to be seated, and by placing
handcuffs on Flores and directing him to lie on the bed.
b.
Full Custodial Arrest
i.
Legal Standard
There
is no “bright line rule for determining when an
investigatory stop crosses the line and becomes an
arrest.” Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308
F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v.
Parr, 843 F.2d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 1988)). See also
Green v. City and County of San Francisco, 751 F.3d
1039, 1047 (9th Cir. 2014). Rather, the determination is a
fact intensive inquiry. Gallegos, 308 F.3d at 991
(citing Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181, 1185
(9th Cir. 1996)). Making the determination of whether a
seizure was an arrest “may in some instances create
difficult line-drawing problems.” United States v.
Ricardo D., 912 F.2d 337, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1990). This
sometimes difficult determination is “guided by the
general Fourth Amendment requirement of
reasonableness.” Gallegos, 308 F.3d at 991.
The Fourth Amendment requires the court to look at the
totality of the circumstances and consider 1) the
intrusiveness of the stop, which includes the aggressiveness
of the police methods, and 2) the justification for the use
of such tactics. Washington , 98 F.3d at 1185. The
determination is essentially an evaluation of “not only
how intrusive the stop was, but also whether the methods used
were reasonable given the specific circumstances.”
Id.
An
investigative detention must be “temporary and last no
longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the
stop.” Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500
(1983). The methods used during the stop should be the
“least intrusive means reasonably available to verify
or dispel the officer’s suspicion in a short period of
time.” Id.
ii.
Evaluating the Intrusiveness of the Seizure
Although
there is no bright line test for evaluating whether a stop
has become an arrest, factors have been identified that
courts may consider in making that determination.
Washington , 98 F.3d at 1188-90 (listing several
factors courts may consider and discussing how each factor
affects the analysis); see also Green, 751 F.3d at
1047. For instance, whether a suspect is transported may be
considered in determining whether a stop became an arrest.
“[T]he police may move a suspect without exceeding the
bounds of an investigative detention when it is a reasonable
means of achieving the legitimate goals of the detention
‘given the specific circumstances of the
case.’” United States v. Charley, 396
F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gallegos, 308
F.3d at 991. Reasons of safety or security may justify the
transportation of a suspect during a stop, but absent these
justifications the stop may ripen into an arrest where
transportation of the suspect is involved. Royer,
460 U.S. at 504 (finding an arrest when the officers
transported the suspect forty feet to a private room without
any cause to believe the suspect posed a danger or flight
risk); United States v. Del Vizo, 918 F.2d 821, 825
(9th Cir. 1990) (fact that a suspect was removed from his car
and made to lie down in the street was a factor in
determining whether an arrest had occurred). The court may
also look to the suspect’s actions in evaluating the
impact of the officer’s actions in transporting him.
Thus, where a suspect is ...