United States District Court, C.D. California
Aguilar-Ballesteros Defendants 12 Daniel Fernando Huizar
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Judge.
CRIMINAL MINUTES - GENERAL
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS (Dkt. 337, filed February
January 31, 2016, the government filed a criminal complaint
against defendant Daniel Fernando Huizar, among others,
stating that defendant possessed with intent to distribute
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(A)(vii) and that defendant aided and abetted the
same offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). Dkt. 1
February 12, 2016, defendant was charged in a two-count
indictment with (1) conspiring to possess at least 1000
kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A)(vii); (2) aiding and abetting the same offense, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). Dkt. 114. Defendant has
entered a not-guilty plea. Dkt. 164.
November 4, 2016, defendant filed a motion to exclude
statements obtained in violation of Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1960). Dkt. 280. On November 21,
2016, the government filed notice of its partial
non-opposition to defendant's motion. Dkt. 286. The
government stated that it did not seek to introduce
defendant's statements in its case-in-chief, but sought
to reserve its right to introduce the statements for
impeachment and other permissible purposes and to preserve
its right to introduce such statements should defendant open
the door to such admission. Id. On December 5, 2016,
the Court granted defendant's motion to exclude
statements obtained in violation of Miranda. Dkt 286
(“December Order”). Specifically, the Court
If defendant testifies in his own defense, his un-Mirandized
statements are admissible for impeachment purposes if
“defendant open[s] the door to the impeaching evidence
by testifying to the point on direct [examination].”
Accordingly, for the purposes of the government's
case-in-chief, the Court GRANTS
defendant's motion to exclude defendant's statements
taken in violation of Miranda.
Id. (citations omitted).
February 27, 2017, defendant filed the instant motion to
suppress the papers and effects seized incident to his
arrest, which he contends was unlawful. Dkt. 337
(“Motion”). The government filed its opposition
on March 6, 2017, dkt. 342 (“Opp'n”), and
defendant filed his reply on March 14, 2017, dkt. 364
January 30, 2016, a panga boat landed on or in the vicinity
of Arroyo Quemada Beach (“AQ Beach”), also known
as Tajiguas Beach, in Santa Barbara County. Motion at 3;
Opp'n at 1. The parties dispute the nature of AQ Beach.
The government contends the beach is remote and isolated,
more than 23 miles from the nearest town, Buellton. Opp'n
at 2. By contrast, defendant contends that AQ beach is a
public beach, near a residential community, with free public
parking on the road adjacent to the beach. Reply at 4.
the boat landed, packages were offloaded and carried from the
boat toward the road. Motion at 3; Opp'n at 2. Three
“off-load” vehicles, including on minivan,
departed from the beach between 2:22 a.m. and 2:47 a.m.
Motion at 3; Opp'n at 2. Law enforcement followed the
three vehicles and eventually stopped and arrested the
suspects in each vehicle. Compl. ¶ 12. Detective
Christopher Dallenbach followed and stopped the minivan-which
contained parts of a boat engine, a GPS, and several cell
phones-and arrested the four individuals inside. Dkt 342-1,
Declaration of Christopher Dallenbach (“Dallenbach
Decl.”) ¶ 9. Dallenbach then returned to AQ Beach
to see if additional suspects remained there. Id.
¶ 11. Before arriving at the beach, Dallenbach learned
that law enforcement had stopped the two other off-load
vehicles, which contained large quantities of marijuana.
Id. ¶ 10.
approximately 4:45 a.m., Dallenbach located defendant in the
brush near the beach. Motion at 4; Opp'n at 4. Dallenbach
drew his weapon, which is equipped with a flashlight, and
ordered defendant to stand up with his hands in the air.
Motion at 4, Opp'n at 4. The parties disagree as to
whether defendant immediately complied with Dallenbach's
order. Motion at 4; Opp'n at 4. According to Dallenbach,
defendant complied only after Dallenbach ordered defendant to
stand with his hands up a second time. Dallenbach Decl.
¶ 4. Defendant observed Dallenbach holster his weapon.
Dkt 337, Ex. A, Declaration of Daniel Huizar (“Huizar
Decl.”) ¶ 2.
handcuffed defendant, walked him back to the main road, and
began to direct questions at defendant. Dallenbach Decl.
¶¶ 16-17; Huizar Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. Dallenbach
asked defendant how he got to the beach, and from where.
Dallenbach Decl. ¶ 17; Huizar Decl. ¶ 5. Defendant
answered that he walked along the beach from Buellton.
Dallenbach Decl. ¶ 17; Huizar Decl. ¶ 5. Dallenbach
was aware that Buellton is approximately ...