United States v. Albert Guzman
739 F.3d 241
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- On May 11, 2010, Dallas officers approached Albert Guzman sitting in a car parked in a driveway while investigating drug sales near the house; Guzman exited the vehicle and spoke with the officers.
- Officer Foster testified he asked to search the car for drugs; Guzman allegedly consented, said there were no drugs but there was a handgun, and Foster then searched and found the gun under the driver’s seat.
- Officers later read Guzman Miranda warnings, interviewed and recorded him; Guzman admitted knowing he possessed the gun. Officers discovered Guzman had prior felonies.
- Guzman moved to suppress the gun and statements, arguing he did not consent; the government argued voluntary consent or, alternatively, that the automobile exception justified the search based on Guzman’s statements.
- At the suppression hearing the district court found a factual conflict about whether consent was given but declined to resolve it, concluding instead that even assuming officers had said they would search (i.e., used “trickery”), Guzman’s admission provided probable cause under the automobile exception.
- Guzman stipulated to the elements at a bench trial to preserve the suppression issue; he was convicted, sentenced, and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent supported the warrantless search | Guzman: he did not consent; officer’s statement he would search rendered any purported consent involuntary | Government: Guzman gave voluntary verbal consent; officer testimony and report support consent | Court: District court failed to resolve factual conflict about whether consent was requested/voluntary; remand required for findings |
| Whether Guzman’s admission could supply probable cause after alleged unlawful search | Guzman: admission was prompted by officer’s misrepresentation and thus tainted; cannot supply probable cause | Government: even if consent disputed, Guzman’s volunteered admission created probable cause under automobile exception | Court: Whether the admission was purged of taint is fact‑intensive; district court wrongly resolved that question as law without making necessary factual findings; remand required |
| Whether officer misrepresentations (“I’m going to search”) are legally permissible trickery | Guzman: such a statement can vitiate voluntariness and taint subsequent admissions | Government: misrepresentations may be mere trickery and do not automatically invalidate consent (Andrews) | Court: Misrepresentation effect is a factual question; district court improperly assumed trickery was legally harmless without findings |
| Whether appellate review can affirm on any reasonable view of the evidence absent district findings | Guzman: absent explicit findings, appellate court must remand when district court did not weigh contested facts | Government: appellate court may affirm if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the ruling | Court: Appellate ‘‘any reasonable view’’ rule inapplicable where district court failed to ask correct legal questions and omitted essential factual findings; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perez, 484 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Karo v. United States, 468 U.S. 705 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable)
- United States v. Andrews, 746 F.2d 247 (5th Cir. 1984) (officer misrepresentation may be considered but does not always overbear will)
- United States v. Hernandez, 670 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 2012) (fruits of unlawful searches inadmissible and admissions may be tainted)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (voluntariness of consent is a fact‑intensive totality‑of‑circumstances inquiry)
- United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2003) (remand required where district court failed to make factual findings essential to suppression decision)
- United States v. Cotton, 72 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 1995) (tests for whether a subsequent statement purges the taint of official misconduct)
- United States v. Williams, 951 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (limits of affirming on any reasonable view of the evidence when district court fails to weigh contested facts)