Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S.A. v. Aguilar-Ballesteros

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 29, 2017

U.S.A.
v.
Aguilar-Ballesteros Defendants 12 Daniel Fernando Huizar

          Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Judge.

          CRIMINAL MINUTES - GENERAL

         Proceedings: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS (Dkt. 337, filed February 27, 2017)

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On 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 ("Compl.").

         On 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.

         On 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 concluded:

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).

         On 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 (“Reply”).

         II. BACKGROUND

         On 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.

         After 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.

         At 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.

         Dallenbach 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.