Pagan-Gonzalez v. Moreno
919 F.3d 582
1st Cir.2019Background
- On Oct. 23, 2013, ~10 FBI agents went to Pagán‑González's home in Puerto Rico and, identifying themselves as FBI, told the family a modem/computer at the house was "sending a signal and/or viruses to computers in Washington."
- Agents asked for consent to inspect/repair computers; Pagán and his parents signed consent forms. Agents later seized Pagán's laptop, telling the family it contained evidence of a crime but not that it was child pornography.
- Forensic review found numerous child‑pornography files; a criminal complaint and arrest warrant followed; Pagán was arrested Dec. 12, 2013; charges were later dismissed.
- Pagán sued under Bivens alleging the search was unconstitutional because consent was procured by deception (a fabricated urgent cyber‑threat), and that his subsequent arrest/prosecution (malicious prosecution) flowed from illegally obtained evidence.
- The district court dismissed: it ruled the search claim time‑barred, and dismissed the prosecution claim for lack of an allegation negating probable cause. On appeal, the First Circuit addressed accrual, voluntariness of consent, and qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual / statute of limitations for search claim | Pagán: claim accrues when true purpose revealed (at arrest), so suit filed within one‑year | Defs: claim accrued at date of search (Oct. 23), so suit (Dec. 12 next year) is time‑barred | Accrual at arrest (Dec. 12); claim timely (statute began Dec. 13) |
| Voluntariness of consent to search after agent deception | Pagán: consent was vitiated because agents, while identifying as FBI, lied about an urgent cyber‑threat, coercing consent | Defs: deception about investigative purpose permissible in some circumstances; consent was valid | Court: totality of circumstances shows fabricated exigency + show of force vitiated consent; search violated Fourth Amendment |
| Qualified immunity for unlawful search | Pagán: defendants not entitled to qualified immunity; law clearly prohibited ruse that conveys no meaningful chance to refuse | Defs: no clearly established law forbids ruses like this; officers could not predict prohibition | Court: clearly established—precedent on fabricated exigency and false claims of authority put reasonable officers on notice; no qualified immunity for search claim |
| Malicious prosecution / use of unlawfully obtained evidence | Pagán: prosecution relied solely on evidence from unlawful search, so seizure/prosecution unconstitutional | Defs: exclusionary rule does not apply in civil suits; unlawfully seized evidence may support probable cause; qualified immunity shields them | Court: defendants entitled to qualified immunity on malicious‑prosecution claim because circuit precedent permits use of illegally obtained evidence to establish probable cause in civil damages contexts; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (government bears burden to prove consent was voluntary; voluntariness is totality‑of‑circumstances inquiry)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1968) (consent vitiated where officer falsely asserts he has a warrant; such claims are "instinct with coercion")
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (magistrate's probable‑cause role can be undermined by deliberate or reckless falsehoods in warrant affidavits)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule; officers may rely on warrants unless magistrate was misled)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (U.S. 2017) (Fourth Amendment claims can encompass unlawful pretrial detention after start of legal process; elements for damages should be governed by Fourth Amendment values)
- Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (U.S. 2018) (qualified immunity analysis requires consideration whether law was clearly established in the specific context)
- Hernandez‑Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2013) (articulated elements for Fourth Amendment‑based malicious prosecution claim: seizure pursuant to process unsupported by probable cause and favorable termination)
- United States v. Spivey, 861 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2017) (ruse cases: deception does not always invalidate consent; context matters)
- United States v. Vanvliet, 542 F.3d 259 (1st Cir. 2008) (fraud/deceit by officers is relevant to voluntariness of consent)