United States v. Molina-Gomez, 1st Cir. (2015)

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

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1494

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J ORGE L. MOLI NA- GMEZ,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

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

[ Hon. J os A. Fust , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Li pez, and Bar r on,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Leonar do M. Al dr i dge- Kont os, Assi st ant Feder al Publ i cDef ender , wi t h whom Hct or E. Guzmn- Si l va, J r . , Feder al Publ i cDef ender , Hct or L. Ramos- Vega, Assi st ant Feder al Publ i c Def ender ,and Li za L. Rosado- Rodr guez, Resear ch and Wr i t i ng Speci al i st , wer eon br i ef , f or appel l ant .

J uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,wi t h whomRosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, andNel 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.

Mar ch 20, 2015


2/24

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. J or ge L. Mol i na- Gmez

( "Mol i na" ) appeal s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der denyi ng hi s mot i on t o

suppr ess both the her oi n di scover ed i n hi dden compar t ment s of hi s

l apt op comput er and Sony Pl ayst at i on game consol e and some of t he

st at ement s he made t o Uni t ed St at es Cust oms and Border Prot ect i on

( "CBP") of f i cer s upon r et ur ni ng t o Puer t o Ri co f r om Col ombi a.

Whi l e we f i nd no Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on, Mol i na' s st atement s

made dur i ng f ur t her secondary quest i oni ng r egardi ng dr ug

t r af f i cki ng act i vi t y shoul d have been suppr essed. As a r esul t , hi s

case must be r emanded so t hat he can opt t o wi t hdr aw hi s pl ea and

pr oceed t o t r i al shoul d he choose t o do so.

I. Background1

On August 6, 2012, at appr oxi matel y 11: 00 p. m. , Mol i na

ar r i ved at t he Lui s Muoz Mar n I nt er nat i onal Ai r por t i n San J uan,

Puer t o Ri co, vi a Panama, af t er a f i ve- day t r i p t o Col ombi a. Thi s

was t he t hi r d t i me i n f our mont hs i n whi ch Mol i na had t aken a shor t

t r i p t o Col ombi a, a known sour ce of i l l egal nar cot i cs. As a

r esul t , t he CBP comput er syst em f l agged Mol i na f or quest i oni ng.

Upon depl ani ng, Mol i na was r ef er r ed to secondary

i nspect i on, where he cl ai med one car r y- on bag, one comput er case

1 Because t hi s appeal f ol l ows a gui l t y pl ea, we dr aw t he f act sf r omt he change- of - pl ea col l oquy and t he pr esent ence i nvest i gat i onr epor t , Uni t ed St at es v. Ci nt r n- Echaut egui , 604 F. 3d 1, 2 ( 1stCi r . 2010) , suppl ement i ng wher e necessar y f r om t he Uni t ed St at esI mmi gr at i on and Cust oms Enf or cement ( " I CE" ) I nvest i gat i on Repor t .Not abl y, t he par t i es do not di sput e many of t he mat er i al f act s.

-2-


3/24

hol di ng an ACER l apt op comput er , and one smal l bag cont ai ni ng a

Sony Pl ayst at i on. The car r y- on bag cont ai ned per sonal bel ongi ngs,

t hree cel l phones, and a West er n Uni on money grami n the amount of

one mi l l i on Col ombi an pesos ( appr oxi matel y $560) sent t o Mol i na at

t he Hotel Gal axy t he day af t er he ar r i ved i n Col ombi a by a

Col ombi an man named Rodol f o Tr ochez Sar d .

I n r esponse t o t he CBP of f i cer s' quest i ons, Mol i na

expl ai ned that he t r avel ed t o Car t agena, Col ombi a, f or f our days t o

vi si t a f r i end, "Cami l o, " whom he met t hr ough anot her f r i end named

Cynt hi a. He st at ed t hat he pur chased hi s t i cket f or $500 on t he

COPA Ai r l i nes websi t e usi ng a cr edi t car d, but t hat he di d not have

t he cr edi t car d wi t h hi m. Mol i na t ol d t he CBP of f i cer s t hat whi l e

i n Col ombi a he st ayed at t he Hotel Gal axy and di d not l eave hi s

hotel r oom, but r ather j ust ate and pl ayed games on hi s

Pl ayst at i on.

These answer s r ai sed t he CBP of f i cer s' suspi ci ons, and

f ur t her quest i oni ng and i nvest i gat i on r eveal ed pr obl ems wi t h

Mol i na' s st or y. For exampl e, Mol i na di d not know ei t her Cami l o or

Cynt hi a' s l ast name. And, cont r ar y t o hi s asser t i on, Mol i na di d

not pur chase hi s pl ane t i cket onl i ne vi a credi t car d, but r at her i t

was pur chased i n cash at a Cal i , Col ombi a t r avel agency. I ndeed,

al l t hr ee of Mol i na' s Col ombi an t r i ps wer e booked wi t h cash thr ough

t hi s t r avel agency.

-3-


4/24

Mol i na was t hen escor t ed t o a smal l ( appr oxi matel y t en-

f oot - by- t en- f oot ) , wi ndowl ess r oomcont ai ni ng one desk wher e he was

pat t ed down and subj ect ed t o f ur t her secondary quest i oni ng. He was

i n t hi s r oom f or appr oxi matel y t wo hour s and was asked about hi s

t r i p t o Col ombi a, hi s i nt ent i ons upon r eent r y, and dr ug t r af f i cki ng

gener al l y. The r ecor d i s uncl ear as t o what speci f i cal l y t he CBP

of f i cer s asked and what Mol i na' s r esponses were. He di d, however ,

t el l t he of f i cer s t hat he had t o wor k the f ol l owi ng mor ni ng at

8: 00 a. m. , and he deni ed any i nvol vement i n dr ug t r af f i cki ng.

Whi l e t hi s quest i oni ng was ongoi ng, ot her CBP of f i cer s

wer e i nspect i ng Mol i na' s bel ongi ngs. They X- r ayed hi s l apt op,

Pl ayst at i on, and t hr ee cel l phones and saw no cont r aband. They

al so conf i r med t hat t he el ect r oni cs wer e al l oper at i onal , but not ed

t hat whi l e t he l apt op t ur ned on, i t cont ai ned no dat a despi t e bei ng

an ol der model . A r evi ew of t he t hr ee cel l phones showed t ext

messages f r om Cami l o, Sar d , and numer ous uni dent i f i ed ot her s.

These t ext messages i nvol ved money t r ansact i ons t ot al i ng

approxi mat el y $8, 000 and r ef erenced money Mol i na had al r eady

r ecei ved and money he woul d r ecei ve once he ar r i ved i n New Yor k.

The phones al so r eveal ed a conf i r med pl ane t i cket f r omSan J uan t o

New Yor k f or 9: 35 t he f ol l owi ng mor ni ng, cont r adi ct i ng Mol i na' s

st atement t o CBP of f i cer s t hat he woul d be worki ng i n San J uan at

8: 00 a. m.

-4-


5/24

Gi ven al l of t hese r ed f l ags, t he of f i cer s suspect ed t hat

Mol i na was smuggl i ng narcot i cs. Because t he pat - down yi el ded no

r esul t s and t he X- r ay of Mol i na' s el ect r oni cs came back negat i ve,

t he of f i cer s wer e concer ned t hat Mol i na was car r yi ng dr ugs

i nt er nal l y. They expl ai ned t he si t uat i on t o Mol i na, and he

vol unt ar i l y consent ed t o a medi cal exam. At around 1: 45 a. m. ,

Mol i na was t aken, i n shackl es, 2 t o San Ger ar do Hospi t al . An X- r ay

exam was i nconcl usi ve, so a CT scan was per f ormed and hi s bowel -

movement s were moni t or ed. These t est s conf i r med t hat t her e were no

f or ei gn obj ect s i nsi de Mol i na' s body. Lat er t hat day, at ar ound

6: 00 p. m. , he was r el eased f r om t he hospi t al and t r anspor t ed back

t o t he ai r por t .

Upon ret ur ni ng to t he ai r por t , Mol i na was r el eased by CBP

and al l owed t o ent er t he Uni t ed St at es. He was gi ven al l of hi s

bel ongi ngs except f or t he l apt op and Pl ayst at i on, whi ch wer e

det ai ned f or f ur t her exami nat i on by t he CBP For ensi cs Labor at or y

because a dog- sni f f "showed i nt er est " i n t he l apt op. Mol i na was

gi ven a pamphl et expl ai ni ng t he el ect r oni c- devi ce det ent i on pr ocess

and whom t o cont act t o i nqui r e about t he pr oper t y.

The f ol l owi ng day, August 8, t he l apt op and Pl ayst at i on

wer e r ecei ved by t he CBP For ensi c Lab. The det ent i on t i cket

2 Mol i na was not handcuf f ed or r est r ai ned dur i ng hi s i ni t i alquest i oni ng or dur i ng t he i nspect i ons of hi s bel ongi ngs. I t i suncl ear whether he was handcuf f ed dur i ng t he f ur t her t wo- hourquest i oni ng i n t he smal l , wi ndowl ess r oom.

-5-


6/24

i ndi cat ed t hat t he det ent i on was f or "dat a ext r act i on" but t hi s was

i n er r or , as t he el ect r oni cs wer e det ai ned i n or der t o be sear ched

f or hi dden cont r aband. I ndeed, no data ext r act i on was ever

conduct ed. Begi nni ng on August 11, Mol i na st ar t ed cal l i ng t he CBP

t o i nqui r e about t he st at us of hi s el ect r oni cs and when t hey woul d

be r etur ned. On August 24, a CBP f orensi c chemi st di sassembl ed t he

el ect r oni cs and f ound bl ack bags hi dden i nsi de sophi st i cat ed

compar t ment s of both t he l apt op and Pl ayst at i on. The bags'

cont ent s t est ed posi t i ve f or her oi n - - 511 gr ams i n t he l apt op and

1. 05 ki l ogr ams i n t he Pl ayst at i on.

On August 28, CBP, i n coor di nat i on wi t h I CE, cal l ed

Mol i na t o i nf or mhi mt hat hi s el ect r oni cs coul d be pi cked up at t he

ai r por t . When Mol i na ar r i ved l at er t hat day, he was ar r est ed by

I CE agent s. The agent s r ead Mol i na hi s r i ght s, whi ch Mol i na

subsequent l y wai ved. He conf i r med t hat he owned bot h t he l apt op

and t he Pl ayst at i on, t hat he t ook t hem t o Col ombi a and i nt ended t o

r et ur n wi t h t hem, t hat he had pl anned t o t r avel t o New Yor k t he

morni ng af t er he r etur ned t o Puer t o Ri co but never di d so, and t hat

hi s t r i p t o Col ombi a and New Yor k wer e pai d f or by Sard .

Mol i na was i ndi ct ed f or possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e one ki l ogr am or mor e of her oi n, i n vi ol at i on of 21

U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) & ( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i ) , i n Sept ember 2012. I n December

2012, he f i l ed a mot i on t o suppr ess t he her oi n and any st atement s

made dur i ng t he f ur t her secondar y quest i oni ng as vi ol at i ons of hi s

-6-


7/24

Four t h and Fi f t h Amendment r i ght s, r espect i vel y. The mot i on was

deni ed vi a a br i ef t ext or der , whi ch st at ed i n i t s ent i r et y:

I amof t he opi ni on t hat t he posi t i on advancedby t he gover nment i n t he opposi t i on t o t he

mot i on t o suppr ess i s cor r ect as a mat t er ofl aw. The Mot i on t o Suppr ess i s deni ed. I ft he def endant pl eads, he may pr eser ve t hei ssue on appeal .

Three days l at er , Mol i na enter ed a condi t i onal pl ea pur suant t o

Rul e 11( a) ( 2) of t he Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e, 3 and he

now t i mel y appeal s t he deni al .

3 The r ul e st at es:

Wi t h t he consent of t he cour t and t he government , adef endant may ent er a condi t i onal pl ea of gui l t y or nol o

cont ender e, r eser vi ng i n wr i t i ng t he r i ght t o have anappel l at e cour t r evi ew an adver se det er mi nat i on of aspeci f i ed pr et r i al mot i on. A def endant who pr evai l s onappeal may t hen wi t hdr aw t he pl ea.

Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11( a) ( 2) . As t her e was no wr i t t en pl ea agr eementi n t hi s case, Rul e 11( a) ( 2) was t echni cal l y vi ol at ed. However ,Mol i na, t he gover nment , and t he di st r i ct cour t al l under st ood t hatt he pl ea was condi t i onal upon Mol i na' s r i ght t o appeal t hesuppr essi on r ul i ng. Thi s was expl i ci t l y st at ed i n t he t ext or derdenyi ng t he mot i on t o suppr ess and agai n at t he change of pl eahear i ng. Thus, t he vi ol at i on i s excused under Rul e 11( h) as a

har ml ess er r or . See Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11( h) ( "A var i ance f r om t her equi r ement s of t hi s r ul e i s har ml ess er r or i f i t does not af f ectsubst ant i al r i ght s. ") . Ot her cour t s f aced wi t h t hi s i ssue havel i kewi se f ound a condi t i onal pl ea val i d despi t e t he t echni calvi ol at i on. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Sant i ago, 410 F. 3d 193,197- 98 ( 5t h Ci r . 2005) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mar kl i ng, 7 F. 3d 1309,1313 ( 7t h Ci r . 1993) .

-7-


8/24

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

"We r evi ew t he [ di st r i ct] cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act f or

cl ear er r or and r evi ew de novo i t s concl usi ons of l aw and i t s

r ul i ngs on t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he gover nment ' s conduct . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Ber as, 183 F. 3d 22, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Car r i gan, 724 F. 3d 39, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( Four t h

Amendment ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mi t t el - Carey, 493 F. 3d 36, 39 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) ( Fi f t h Amendment ) . Because t he di st r i ct cour t made no

f i ndi ngs of f act , t he ent i r e r ecor d i s r evi ewed de novo. Uni t ed

St at es v. Robl es, 45 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . So l ong as "any

r easonabl e vi ew of t he evi dence suppor t s i t , " we wi l l uphol d t he

deni al of t he mot i on t o suppr ess. Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 510 F. 3d

57, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on

omi t t ed) .

B. The Search of the Electronics

Mol i na f i r st ar gues t hat t he sear ch of hi s l apt op and

Pl ayst at i on, whi ch uncover ed t he hi dden her oi n, was an unr easonabl e

sear ch i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h Amendment t o the Uni t ed St ates

Const i t ut i on. Pur suant t o t he Four t h Amendment ,

The r i ght of t he peopl e t o be secur e i n t hei r

per sons, houses, paper s, and ef f ect s, agai nstunr easonabl e sear ches and sei zur es, shal l notbe vi ol at ed, and no War r ant s shal l i ssue, butupon probabl e cause, suppor t ed by Oat h oraf f i r mat i on, and par t i cul ar l y descri bi ng t hepl ace t o be searched, and t he persons ort hi ngs t o be sei zed.

-8-


9/24

U. S. Const . amend. I V. I t i s wel l est abl i shed, however , t hat "t he

Four t h Amendment ' s bal ance of r easonabl eness i s qual i t at i vel y

di f f er ent at t he i nt er nat i onal bor der t han i n t he i nt er i or " due t o

t he "l ongst andi ng concer n f or t he pr ot ect i on of t he i nt egr i t y of

t he border . " Uni t ed St at es v. Mont oya de Hernndez, 473 U. S. 531,

538 ( 1985) . Thi s concer n i s, " i f anythi ng, hei ght ened by t he

ver i t abl e nat i onal cr i si s i n l aw enf or cement caused by smuggl i ng of

i l l i ci t nar cot i cs. " I d. As a r esul t , ther e i s a r ecogni zed

"bor der sear ch except i on" t o t he war r ant r equi r ement . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606, 619- 22 ( 1977) ; see al so Mont oya de

Her nndez, 473 U. S. at 538; Ber as, 183 F. 3d at 25- 26.

I nt er nat i onal ai r por t s such as t he Lui s Muoz Mar n I nt er nat i onal

Ai r por t ar e t he "f unct i onal equi val ent " of an i nt er nat i onal bor der

and ar e t hus subj ect t o t hi s except i on. Robl es, 45 F. 3d at 5;

Uni t ed St at es v. Ur i coechea- Casal l as, 946 F. 2d 162, 164 ( 1st Ci r .

1991) .

Under t he bor der sear ch except i on, " [ r ] out i ne sear ches of

t he per sons and ef f ect s of ent r ant s ar e not subj ect t o any

r equi r ement of r easonabl e suspi ci on, pr obabl e cause, or war r ant . "

Mont oya de Hernndez, 473 U. S. at 538; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Br aks, 842 F. 2d 509, 514 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( "The Fi r st Ci r cui t

st andar d f or r out i ne bor der sear ches i s t he ' no suspi ci on'

st andar d. " ) . These sear ches "ar e r easonabl e si mpl y by vi r t ue of

t he f act t hey occur at t he bor der . " Uni t ed St at es v. Fl or es-

-9-


10/24

Mont ano, 541 U. S. 149, 152- 53 ( 2004) ( quot i ng Ramsey, 431 U. S. at

616) . Non- r out i ne sear ches, by cont r ast , r equi r e r easonabl e

suspi ci on. Mont oya de Her nndez, 473 U. S. at 541- 42; Uni t ed St at es

v. Bar r ow, 448 F. 3d 37, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Though t her e i s no

hard- and- f ast r ul e, and t he Supr eme Cour t has caut i oned agai nst

" [ c] ompl ex bal anci ng t est s, " Fl or es- Mont ano, 541 U. S. at 152,

whet her a sear ch qual i f i es as " r out i ne" or "not r out i ne" of t en

depends on t he "degr ee of i nvasi veness or i nt r usi veness associ at ed

wi t h" t he sear ch. Br aks, 842 F. 2d at 511- 12 ( l i st i ng numer ous

f act or s t o consi der ) . For exampl e, sear ches t hat are "hi ghl y

i nt r usi ve sear ches of t he per son, " Fl or es- Mont ano, 541 U. S. at 152,

such as st r i p sear ches and body cavi t y searches, have been deemed

t o be non- r out i ne. E. g. , i d. ; Bar r ow, 448 F. 3d at 41; Br aks, 842

F. 2d at 512- 13; Uni t ed St at es v. Kal l evi g, 534 F. 2d 411, 413- 14

( 1st Ci r . 1976) . So have sear ches of pr oper t y t hat ar e

"dest r uct i ve, " Fl or es- Mont ano, 541 U. S. at 155- 56, such as dr i l l i ng

a hol e i n a met al cyl i nder . Robl es, 45 F. 3d at 5. By cont r ast ,

pat - downs, Br aks, 842 F. 2d at 513, sear chi ng l uggage i nsi de an

ai r cr af t ' s car go hol d, Ur i coechea- Casal l as, 946 F. 2d at 165,

openi ng bot t l es of l i quor and t est i ng t he cont ent s, Bar r ow, 448

F. 3d at 41, and removi ng, di sassembl i ng, and reassembl i ng a f uel

t ank wi t hout causi ng damage, Fl ores- Mont ano, 541 U. S. at 154- 55,

have al l been deemed r out i ne sear ches.

-10-


11/24

Her e, Mol i na ar gues t hat t he sear ch of hi s l apt op and

Pl ayst at i on t hat l ed t o t he di scover y of t he t wo her oi n bags

const i t ut es a non- r out i ne and unr easonabl e sear ch. However , he i s

unabl e t o poi nt t o any speci f i c act t hat i s ei t her non- r out i ne or

unr easonabl e. I nst ead, hi s ar gument seems t o be t hat because t he

i ni t i al X- r ay and sear ch of hi s l apt op and Pl ayst at i on t ur ned up

negat i ve, and because hi s ei ght een- hour det ent i on at t he hospi t al

( t o whi ch he consent ed) showed t hat he was not car r yi ng dr ugs

i nt er nal l y, i t was t her ef or e unr easonabl e t o det ai n hi s l apt op and

Pl ayst at i on f or f ur t her t est i ng. And, even i f i t was reasonabl e t o

f ur t her det ai n t he el ectr oni cs i ni t i al l y, he cont ends, t he

det ent i on became unreasonabl e dur i ng t he t went y- t wo days t hey were

at t he CBP l ab. The gover nment , f or i t s par t , count er s t hat t he

sear ch qual i f i es as a r out i ne bor der sear ch and t hus no suspi ci on

at al l - - l et al one r easonabl e suspi ci on - - was necessar y, but even

i f r easonabl e suspi ci on was necessary, t hat st andar d was sat i sf i ed.

We need not categor i ze t he sear ch as ei t her r out i ne or

non- r out i ne because we agree wi t h t he gover nment t hat even assumi ng

t he sear ch was non- r out i ne, r easonabl e suspi ci on exi st ed t o j ust i f y

t he sear ch. Reasonabl e suspi ci on exi st s when agent s "demonst r ate

some obj ecti ve, ar t i cul abl e f acts t hat j ust i f y t he i nt r usi on as t o

t he par t i cul ar per son and pl ace sear ched. " Robl es, 45 F. 3d at 5

( quot i ng Ur i coechea- Casal l as, 946 F. 2d at 166) ; see al so Mont oya de

Her nndez, 473 U. S. at 541- 42 (descr i bi ng reasonabl e suspi ci on as

-11-


12/24

a "common- sense concl usi o[ n] about human behavi or upon whi ch

pr acti cal peopl e, - - i ncl udi ng gover nment of f i ci al s, ar e ent i t l ed

t o r el y" ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng New J er sey v. T. L. O. ,

469 U. S. 325, 346 ( 1985) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

Such obj ect i ve, ar t i cul abl e f act s ar e pr esent her e.

Fi r st , t hi s was Mol i na' s t hi r d t r i p i n f our mont hs ( each onl y f or

a mat t er of days) t o Col ombi a, a count r y known f or i t s connect i on

t o dr ug smuggl i ng. Second, Mol i na gave odd and suspi ci ous answers

t o r out i ne Cust oms quest i ons. These answer s ranged f r om hi ghl y

dubi ous - - ( 1) he coul d not r emember t he l ast name of ei t her t he

f r i end he was vi si t i ng ( Cami l o) or t he f r i end who i nt r oduced t hem

( Cynt hi a) ; and ( 2) al l he di d whi l e i n Col ombi a was st ay i n t he

hot el and pl ay wi t h hi s Pl ayst at i on - t o asser t i ons pr oven t o be

f l at - out l i es - - ( 3) he cl ai med t o have pur chased hi s t i cket onl i ne

wi t h a credi t car d but i n act ual i t y pai d f or i t i n cash at a t r avel

agency; and ( 4) he cl ai med t o be worki ng i n Puer t o Ri co t he next

mor ni ng but i n f act had a conf i r med f l i ght t o New Yor k Ci t y.

Thi r d, hi s l apt op was ol d and oper at i onal , yet i t cont ai ned no

dat a. Fi nal l y, hi s phones cont ai ned t ext messages i nvol vi ng pr i or

and f ut ur e money t r ansact i ons. Taken t oget her , t hese f act s easi l y

gi ve r i se t o a r easonabl e suspi ci on t hat Mol i na was at t empt i ng t o

smuggl e nar cot i cs. See Robl es, 45 F. 3d at 5 ( hol di ng t hat

r easonabl e suspi ci on exi st ed where a met al machi ne par t of no

commer ci al val ue was shi pped "f r om Col ombi a - - a known sour ce

-12-


13/24

count r y f or nar cot i cs" t o a r esi dence i n t he Uni t ed St at es at a

cost hi gher t han i t s wor t h, wi t hout i nsur ance) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Lamel a, 942 F. 2d 100, 102 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( f i ndi ng r easonabl e

suspi ci on where def endant , among ot her t hi ngs, "was a passenger

aboar d an i nt er nat i onal f l i ght or i gi nat i ng i n Col ombi a" and "gave

i nconsi st ent r esponses t o r out i ne quest i ons r el at i ng t o t he pur pose

of hi s t r avel ") ; Kal l evi g, 534 F. 2d at 414 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he

"pat t er n and br evi t y of [ def endant ' s] r ecent vi si t s t o count r i es

consi der ed t o be i mpor t ant sour ces of dr ugs" was "pr oper l y noted"

as a rel evant f act or i n eval uat i ng r easonabl e suspi ci on) .

That t he i ni t i al X- r ay of t he el ect r oni cs and t he X- r ay,

CT scan, and bowel moni t or i ng of Mol i na came up negat i ve i n no way

al t er s t hi s concl usi on or t r ansf or ms a l egi t i mat e and pr oper sear ch

i nt o an unr easonabl e one. "Aut hor i t i es must be al l owed ' t o

gr aduate t hei r r esponse t o the demands of any par t i cul ar

si t uat i on, ' " Mont oya de Her nndez, 473 U. S. at 542 ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Pl ace, 462 U. S. 696, 709 n. 10 ( 1983) ) , and t hat i s

pr eci sel y what t he CBP of f i cer s di d her e. The of f i cer s had

r easonabl e suspi ci on t hat Mol i na was smuggl i ng dr ugs; t hey j ust di d

not know where t he dr ugs were hi dden. There i s not hi ng

unr easonabl e about t he of f i cer s shi f t i ng t hei r at t ent i on back t o

t he el ect r oni cs and gi vi ng t hema more i n- dept h l ook once t hey wer e

sat i sf i ed t hat t he dr ugs wer e nei t her on nor i n Mol i na' s body. To

t he cont r ary, t hi s appr oach i s emi nent l y r easonabl e when one

-13-


14/24

consi der s t hat a dog- sni f f conduct ed whi l e Mol i na was at t he

hospi t al showed i nt er est i n hi s l apt op.

Si mi l ar l y, t he sear ch di d not become unr easonabl e dur i ng

t he t went y- t wo days t he el ect r oni cs were detai ned. The Supr eme

Cour t has " consi st ent l y rej ect ed har d- and- f ast t i me l i mi t s, "

i nst ead pl aci ng an emphasi s on "' common sense and or di nar y human

exper i ence. ' " I d. at 543 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Shar pe, 470

U. S. 675, 685 ( 1985) ) ; see al so Fl or es- Mont ano, 541 U. S. at 155 n. 3

( not i ng t hat "[ r ] espondent poi nt s t o no cases i ndi cat i ng t he Four t h

Amendment shi el ds ent r ant s f r om i nconveni ence or del ay at t he

i nt er nat i onal bor der " ) . Though t went y- t wo days does seeml engt hy,

i t i s not unr easonabl e under t hese ci r cumst ances. We wi l l not

second- guess t he t echni ques used by t he CBP l ab and r equi r e t hat a

f ast er al t er nat i ve - - whi ch coul d have damaged t he el ect r oni cs

dur i ng t he di sassembl y and r eassembl y pr ocess, coul d have put an

unnecessary budget ary and workl oad st r ai n on t he l ab, or coul d even

have f ai l ed t o det ect t he exper t l y hi dden her oi n - - be empl oyed. 4

See Mont oya de Hernndez, 473 U. S. at 542 ( " [ C] our t s shoul d not

i ndul ge i n ' unr eal i st i c second- guessi ng, ' . . . . ' [ T] he f act t hat

t he pr ot ect i on of t he publ i c mi ght , i n t he abst r act , have been

4 We not e t hat whi l e Mol i na' s l apt op and Pl ayst at i on wer e det ai nedf or t went y- t wo days, Mol i na hi msel f was al l owed ent r y i nt o t heUni t ed St at es upon hi s r et ur n f r om t he hospi t al . I t woul d be adi f f er ent si t uat i on - - one we t ake no posi t i on on - - i f Mol i nahi msel f was al so f or ced t o st ay i n det ent i on dur i ng t he t went y- t wodays hi s l apt op was bei ng hel d by CBP.

-14-


15/24

accompl i shed by ' l ess- i nt r usi ve' means does not , i n i t sel f , r ender

t he sear ch unr easonabl e. ' " ( quot i ng Shar pe, 470 U. S. at 686, 687) ) ;

i d. at 544 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he Cust oms of f i cer s wer e not r equi r ed

by t he Four t h Amendment t o "si mpl y shrug [ t hei r ] shoul der s" and

al l ow an al i ment ar y canal smuggl i ng def endant i nt o t he i nt er i or

because she had been detai ned f or t oo l ong bef ore passi ng cocai ne-

f i l l ed bal l oons ( quot i ng Adams v. Wi l l i ams, 407 U. S. 143, 145

( 1972) ) ) . Thus, t he sear ch of Mol i na' s l apt op and Pl ayst at i on di d

not vi ol at e hi s Four t h Amendment r i ght s.

C. The Further Secondary Questioning

Mol i na al so ar gues t hat t he f ur t her secondar y quest i oni ng

conduct ed by t he CBP of f i cer s i n a smal l , wi ndowl ess r oom vi ol at ed

hi s Fi f t h Amendment r i ght s because he was not gi ven hi s Mi r anda

war ni ngs pr i or t o bei ng quest i oned. 5 We agr ee. 6

"The Supr eme Cour t devel oped t he Mi r anda r ul es as a

pr ophyl act i c measur e t o di ssi pat e t he coer ci on i nher ent i n t he

cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on set t i ng, wi t h a goal of ensur i ng t hat any

5 Mol i na concedes t hat t he i ni t i al quest i oni ng by t he CBP of f i cer spr i or t o bei ng moved t o t hi s r oom was per mi ssi bl e.

6 When Mol i na moved t o suppr ess hi s st atement s i n t he di st r i ctcour t , t he gover nment f ai l ed t o r espond. Mol i na t hus ar gues t hat

t he government has wai ved any opposi t i on t o t hei r suppr essi on. Wedi sagr ee. By denyi ng Mol i na' s mot i on t o suppr ess, t he di st r i ctcour t " i mpl i ci t l y f or [ gave] any wai ver t hat may have occur r ed. "Uni t ed St at es v. Scot t , 705 F. 3d 410, 416 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) . I nsi mi l ar ci r cumst ances, we have r eached t he mer i t s of al l egedl ywai ved argument s, and we wi l l do so here as wel l . See Uni t edSt at es v. Del - Val l e, 566 F. 3d 31, 37- 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

-15-


16/24

st at ement s made by a suspect ar e ' t r ul y t he pr oduct of f r ee

choi ce' " and consi st ent wi t h t he Fi f t h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed

St at es Const i t ut i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Vzquez, 857 F. 2d 857, 861

( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( quot i ng Mi r anda v. Ar i zona, 384 U. S. 436, 457, 458

( 1966) ) . Accor di ngl y, " [ i ] t i s wel l est abl i shed t hat Mi r anda

war ni ngs must be communi cat ed t o a suspect bef or e he i s subj ect ed

t o ' cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Nai Fook Li , 206

F. 3d 78, 83 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . Bot h "cust ody" and " i nt er r ogat i on"

must be pr esent t o r equi r e Mi r anda war ni ngs. See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Fer nndez- Vent ur a, 85 F. 3d 708, 710 ( 1st Ci r . 1996)

( "Fer nndez- Vent ur a I " ) .

Cust ody exi st s wher e t her e i s "a f or mal ar r est or

r est r ai nt on f r eedom of movement of t he degr ee associ ated wi t h a

f or mal ar r est . " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) . Though cust ody i s a somewhat amor phous concept , r el evant

consi der at i ons i n a cust ody det er mi nat i on i ncl ude, but ar e not

l i mi t ed t o, "whet her t he suspect was quest i oned i n f ami l i ar or at

l east neut r al sur r oundi ngs, t he number of l aw enf or cement of f i cer s

pr esent at t he scene, t he degr ee of physi cal r est r ai nt pl aced upon

t he suspect , and t he dur at i on and char act er of t he i nt er r ogat i on. "

I d. at 711 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v. Masse, 816 F. 2d 805, 809 ( 1st

Ci r . 1987) ) .

I n t he border cont ext , we al so "must t ake i nt o account

t he st r ong gover nment al i nt er est i n cont r ol l i ng our bor der s. "

-16-


17/24

Uni t ed St at es v. Fer nndez- Vent ur a, 132 F. 3d 844, 846 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) ( "Fer nndez- Vent ur a I I ") . As a r esul t , t he r ul es sur r oundi ng

Mi r anda at t he border are more r el axed. See Uni t ed St ates v. Long

Tong Ki am, 432 F. 3d 524, 529 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) ( " [ N] or mal Mi r anda

r ul es si mpl y cannot appl y t o t hi s uni que si t uat i on at t he bor der .

Thi s i s a si t uat i on ut t er l y unl i ke a normal l aw enf or cement

set t i ng. " ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . "[ E] vent s whi ch mi ght be

enough t o si gnal ' cust ody' away f r om t he border wi l l not be enough

t o est abl i sh ' cust ody' i n t he cont ext of ent r y i nt o [ t ] he count r y. "

Fer nndez- Vent ur a I I , 132 F. 3d at 847 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Moya, 74 F. 3d 1117, 1120 ( 11t h Ci r . 1996) ) . For exampl e, even

t hough a t r avel er bei ng quest i oned by CBP i s not " f r ee t o l eave, "

he i s not necessar i l y i n cust ody. See Fer nndez- Vent ur a I , 85 F. 3d

at 711 ( " [ E] ven secondar y i nspect i on does not per se const i t ut e

custodi al i nt er r ogat i on. ") ; i d. at 712 ( expl ai ni ng t hat i t " i s

si mpl y wr ong" t o concl ude t hat a t r avel er i s i n cust ody because

t hey "may not si mpl y wal k away f r om an i nt er r ogat i ng of f i cer "

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

But l er , 249 F. 3d 1094, 1100 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ( " [ T] he mer e det ent i on

of a per son i n a bor der st at i on' s secur i t y of f i ce f r om whi ch he or

she i s not f r ee t o l eave, whi l e a sear ch of a vehi cl e occur s, i s

not ' cust ody' f or [ Mi r anda] pur poses. ") .

"Rel axed" r ul es, however , do not mean no r ul es, and a

r evi ew of t he r ecor d per suades us t hat , gi ven t he tot al i t y of t he

-17-


18/24

ci r cumst ances, Mol i na was, i ndeed, i n cust ody dur i ng t hi s f ur t her

secondar y quest i oni ng. Fi r st , Mol i na was pl aced i n a smal l ,

wi ndowl ess r oom, appr oxi mat el y ten- f eet - by- t en- f eet , wi t h at l east

t wo CBP of f i cer s. As we not ed i n Uni t ed St at es v. Pr at t , 645 F. 2d

89, 90 ( 1st Ci r . 1981) , t he "conf i ni ng char act er of a [ C] ust oms

quest i oni ng cel l , combi ned wi t h i sol at i on wi t h t wo pr obi ng

i nspect or s, . . . cr eat es an oppr essi ve at mospher e t hat we [ cannot ]

i gnor e. "

Second, Mol i na was hel d i n t hi s r oomf or between one- and-

a- hal f and t wo hour s. Though t hi s i s "never a si ngl y det er mi nat i ve

f act or , " i d. at 91, t he l onger someone i s det ai ned, t he mor e l i kel y

he i s i n cust ody. Compar e i d. at 90- 91 ( f i ndi ng t hat a f i f t een-

mi nut e encount er "suppor t s a char act er i zat i on of r out i ne [ C] ust oms

i nqui r y r at her t han cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on" ) , and Bor odi ne v.

Douzani s, 592 F. 2d 1202, 1208 ( 1st Ci r . 1979) ( f i ndi ng t hat a t en-

mi nut e encount er was not cust odi al and r ef er r i ng t o si mi l ar cases

i nvol vi ng encount er s of sevent een- mi nut es and t went y- mi nut es) , wi t h

Uni t ed St at es v. Gar c a, 496 F. 2d 670, 672- 73 ( 5t h Ci r . 1974)

( hol di ng an encount er t o be cust odi al wher e det ent i on l ast ed " f or

at l east an hour " ) . But see Fer nndez- Vent ur a I I , 132 F. 3d at 848

( f i ndi ng t hat a one- hour - and- t went y- mi nut e encount er was "not

ext r aor di nar y" and di d not est abl i sh cust ody wher e t he r ecor d di d

not suppor t def endant ' s al l egat i on t hat he was " subj ect ed t o

' f ocused quest i oni ng' " f or t hat ent i r e t i me) .

-18-


19/24

Thi r d, t he quest i oni ng was not " r out i ne. " The CBP

of f i cer s wer e no l onger pr obi ng whet her or not t o admi t Mol i na i nt o

t he count r y, as t hey had al r eady revi ewed Mol i na' s t r avel document s

and t her ef or e conf i r med hi s U. S. ci t i zenshi p. I nst ead, t hey wer e

pr obi ng t hei r suspi ci ons of Mol i na' s i nvol vement wi t h dr ug

smuggl i ng act i vi t y. Cf . Pr at t , 645 F. 2d at 91 ( f i ndi ng t hat

because, among ot her t hi ngs, " [ n] o event s t r anspi r ed t o cr eat e or

t o symbol i ze a hi gh and evi dent degr ee of suspi ci on about t he

appel l ant by t he agent s, " t he encount er di d "not t r ansgr ess t he

l i mi t s t hat case l aw has per mi t t ed i n t he absence of Mi r anda

war ni ngs" ) . 7

Taken t ogether , we concl ude t hat t hi s encount er - - whi ch

i nvol ved a l engt hy det ent i on i n a smal l , wi ndowl ess r oom and

pr obi ng quest i ons about pot ent i al i l l egal act i vi t y - - went above

and beyond a rout i ne Cust oms i nspect i on t o determi ne whether or not

Mol i na shoul d be admi t t ed i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es. I nst ead, i t was

aki n t o " ' a f or mal ar r est or r est r ai nt on f r eedom of movement of

7 Mol i na al so cl ai ms t hat he was handcuf f ed t o t he desk t hr oughoutt he ent i r e encount er . The gover nment , meanwhi l e, count er s t hatt her e was no evi dence t hat Mol i na was handcuf f ed, out si de of hi sown sel f - ser vi ng st at ement . I t adds t hat t he sur vei l l ance vi deoshows Mol i na l eavi ng t he secondar y ar ea, bei ng escor t ed to hi s

car r y- on bel ongi ngs, and r et ur ni ng t o t he secondar y ar ea wi t houtr est r ai nt s; i t was not unt i l Mol i na was t r anspor t ed t o t he hospi t alt hat vi deo f oot age shows hi m shackl ed. Because t he governmentnever di r ect l y r ef ut es t hat Mol i na was handcuf f ed, t hi sconsi der at i on i s, at best , ambi guous. Hence, we cannot f act orwhether Mol i na was handcuf f ed i nt o our eval uat i on of whether he wasi n cust ody.

-19-


20/24

t he degr ee associ at ed wi t h a f or mal ar r est . ' " Fer nndez- Vent ur a I ,

85 F. 3d at 710 (quot i ng Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99, 112

( 1995) ) . Thus, Mol i na was i n cust ody f or Mi r anda pur poses.

Bei ng i n cust ody, however , i s onl y hal f t he equat i on.

Mol i na must st i l l pr ove t hat he was subj ect t o i nt er r ogat i on.

"I nt er r ogat i on r ef er s t o bot h expr ess quest i oni ng and i t s

' f unct i onal equi val ent , ' whi ch i ncl udes ' any wor ds or act i ons on

t he par t of t he pol i ce ( ot her t han t hose nor mal l y at t endant t o

ar r est and cust ody) t hat t he pol i ce shoul d know ar e reasonabl y

l i kel y t o el i ci t an i ncri mi nat i ng r esponse f r omt he suspect. ' " I d.

at 711 ( quot i ng Rhode I sl and v. I nni s, 446 U. S. 291, 301 ( 1980) ) .

At t he same t i me t hough, "quest i ons f r om [ Cust oms] of f i ci al s ar e

especi al l y under st ood t o be a necessar y and i mpor t ant r out i ne f or

t r avel er s ar r i vi ng at Amer i can ent r y poi nt s. " I d. ; see al so Pr at t ,

645 F. 2d at 90 ( expl ai ni ng t hat i ndi vi dual s "appr oach of f i ci al

[ ai r por t Cust oms i nspect i ons] i nqui r y knowi ng of i t s gr eat er

necessi t y and r out i ne" ) . "Thi s under st andi ng cut s agai nst t he

pot ent i al l y coer ci ve aspect of t he Cust oms i nqui r y, and [ t hus]

l essens t he need f or Mi r anda war ni ngs. " Fer nndez- Vent ur a I , 85

F. 3d at 711; see al so Long Tong Ki am, 432 F. 3d at 529 ( "We now

r eaf f i r mt he wel l - est abl i shed aut hor i t y of bor der i nspect or s t o ask

quest i ons of t hose ent er i ng t he Uni t ed St at es. ") . As a r esul t , a

"car ef ul exami nat i on of al l t he ci r cumst ances" i s needed i n or der

-20-


21/24

t o di st i ngui sh bet ween "r out i ne Cust oms quest i oni ng and cust odi al

i nt er r ogat i on. " Fer nndez- Vent ur a I , 85 F. 3d at 711.

Her e, t he recor d i s uncl ear as t o what exact l y Mol i na was

asked dur i ng secondary quest i oni ng. He cl ai ms, however - - and t he

government does not cont est - - t hat he was asked general quest i ons

r egar di ng hi s r easons f or t r avel i ng t o anot her count r y, hi s

act i vi t i es whi l e t her e, hi s r easons f or ent er i ng t he Uni t ed St at es,

and hi s i nvol vement i n dr ug- t r af f i cki ng act i vi t i es. Accor di ng t o

Mol i na, t hi s was al l " i nt er r ogat i on" because he was i n cust ody

dur i ng t he f ur t her secondar y quest i oni ng, and t hus " al l st at ement s"

made whi l e i n t he smal l wi ndowl ess r oom must be suppressed.

Mol i na' s posi t i on i s f ar t oo br oad. Some of t he

quest i ons asked, such as Mol i na' s r easons f or t r avel i ng t o

Col ombi a, what he di d whi l e t her e, and why he deci ded t o r et ur n

when he di d, were rout i ne quest i ons whi ch we have hel d do not

const i t ut e i nt er r ogat i on. See, e. g. , i d. at 710 ( "[ I ] n t he Cust oms

cont ext , we have st at ed t hat quest i ons f r om of f i ci al s ar e

especi al l y under st ood t o be a necessar y and i mpor t ant r out i ne f or

t r avel er s ar r i vi ng at Amer i can ent r y poi nt s. ") ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Taj eddi ni , 996 F. 2d 1278, 1287- 88 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( aski ng "where [ a

t r avel er ] was ar r i vi ng f r om and wi t h whom he was t r avel i ng"

const i t ut e "r out i ne Cust oms quest i ons" not r equi r i ng Mi r anda

warni ngs) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ledezma- Hernndez, 729 F. 2d 310, 313

( 5t h Ci r . 1984) ( f i ndi ng t hat r out i ne quest i oni ng at t he bor der as

-21-


22/24

t o t he t r avel er ' s dest i nat i on and t he cont ent s of hi s t r uck was not

cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on) . I ndeed, t hese ar e t he same quest i ons

Mol i na was asked dur i ng hi s i ni t i al quest i oni ng, and he has

conceded t hat t hey wer e appr opr i ate quest i ons.

The CBP of f i cer s' quest i oni ng i nt o Mol i na' s i nvol vement

wi t h dr ug act i vi t y, however , i s mor e pr obl emat i c. Thi s l i ne of

quest i oni ng had nothi ng t o do wi t h whet her or not t o admi t Mol i na

i nt o t he count r y. I nst ead, t hese quest i ons " symbol i ze[ d] a hi gh

and evi dent degr ee of suspi ci on" by t he CBP of f i cer s. Cf . Pr at t ,

645 F. 2d at 90- 91 ( f i ndi ng t hat l i mi t ed quest i oni ng seeki ng an

expl anat i on as t o why t he t r avel er possessed a t i cket i ssued f or

anot her per son was r out i ne and di d not "cr eat e or . . . symbol i ze

a hi gh and evi dent degr ee of suspi ci on about t he appel l ant " ) . The

of f i cer s wer e al r eady l eer y t hat Mol i na may have been i nvol ved i n

dr ug t r af f i cki ng, and t hi s l i ne of quest i oni ng was cl ear l y ai med at

el i ci t i ng an i ncr i mi nat i ng r esponse. See I nni s, 446 U. S. at 301;

Fer nndez- Vent ur a I , 85 F. 3d at 710- 12 ( f i ndi ng t hat quest i ons by

Cust oms agent s i nt o "whet her [ t he def endant s wer e] car r yi ng any

money" woul d "qui t e cl ear l y . . . const i t ut e[ ] i nt er r ogat i on" i f

t he def endant s were i n cust ody) ; see al so Long Tong Ki am, 432 F. 3d

at 530 ( expl ai ni ng t hat i nt er r ogat i on begi ns once "t he i nspect or ' s

quest i ons obj ect i vel y cease t o have a bear i ng on the gr ounds f or

admi ssi bi l i t y and i nst ead onl y f ur t her a pot ent i al cr i mi nal

-22-


23/24

pr osecut i on") . The quest i ons r egar di ng Mol i na' s dr ug t r af f i cki ng

act i vi t i es, t her ef or e, const i t ut ed i nt er r ogat i on.

Because Mol i na was i n cust ody dur i ng the f ur t her

secondary quest i oni ng and t he quest i ons r el at i ng t o dr ug

t r af f i cki ng const i t ut ed i nt er r ogat i on, t he CBP of f i cer s wer e

r equi r ed t o gi ve Mol i na hi s Mi r anda warni ngs. See Fer nndez-

Vent ur a I , 85 F. 3d at 710. Thei r f ai l ur e t o do so const i t ut ed a

Fi f t h Amendment vi ol at i on, and as a resul t any st at ement s made by

Mol i na i n r esponse t o t hese quest i ons shoul d have been suppr essed

by t he di st r i ct cour t . 8

III. Conclusion

Mol i na' s mot i on t o suppr ess t he her oi n sei zed f r om hi s

l apt op and Pl ayst at i on was proper l y deni ed, as was hi s mot i on t o

suppr ess r egardi ng the st atement s made dur i ng hi s f ur t her secondary

quest i oni ng as t o hi s t r avel s t o and f r om Col ombi a and hi s pl ans

upon r eent r y. The st at ement s regar di ng Mol i na' s dr ug t r af f i cki ng

act i vi t y, however , shoul d have been suppr essed. Gi ven t he

r emai ni ng admi ssi bl e evi dence agai nst Mol i na, i t i s hi ghl y unl i kel y

t hat t he suppr essi on of t hese st at ement s r egar di ng dr ug t r af f i cki ng

8 I t i s i r r el evant t hat Mol i na' s r esponses t o t he dr ug- t r af f i cki ng

i nt er r ogat i on wer e not i ncr i mi nat i ng. As t he Supr eme Cour texpl ai ned i n Mi r anda, "no di st i nct i on may be dr awn bet weeni ncul patory st atement s and st atement s al l eged t o be mer el y' excul patory' " because even "st atement s mer el y i nt ended t o beexcul patory by t he def endant are of t en used t o i mpeach hi st est i mony at t r i al or t o demonst r at e unt r ut hs i n t he st at ementgi ven. " Mi r anda, 384 U. S. at 477.

-23-


24/24

act i vi t y - - act i vi t y t hat Mol i na emphat i cal l y deni ed at t he t i me - -

woul d have af f ected hi s deci si on t o pl ead gui l t y. St i l l , t hat i s

not our deci si on t o make. As we expl ai ned i n Uni t ed St ates v.

Weber , "a cour t has no r i ght t o deci de f or a def endant t hat hi s

deci si on [ t o pl ead gui l t y] woul d have been the same had t he

evi dence t he cour t consi der s harml ess not been pr esent . " 668 F. 2d

552, 562 ( 1st Ci r . 1981) ( adopt i ng t he r at i onal e of t he Sevent h

Ci r cui t and numer ous st at e cour t s) . Mol i na i s ent i t l ed t o

det er mi ne f or hi msel f whet her he st i l l wi shes t o pl ead gui l t y gi ven

t he suppr essi on of t he dr ug- t r af f i cki ng- r el at ed st at ement s, and,

t heref ore, hi s case i s r emanded so he may have the opt i on of

wi t hdr awi ng hi s pl ea and pr oceedi ng t o t r i al shoul d he choose t o do

so.

REMANDED.

-24-

United States v. Molina-Gomez, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Molina-Gomez, 1st Cir. (2015)