United States v. Almonte-Baez
857 F.3d 27
1st Cir.2017Background
- DEA agents investigating a Lawrence, MA drug ring intercepted calls indicating José Medina received weekly bulk heroin shipments and was targeted for robbery.
- On July 26, 2013, agents observed Medina carry a heavy trash bag from a Cedar Street building, stopped his car, found large amounts of cash (over $370,000) and arrested him; Medina had a prior drug conviction and had participated in a prior controlled purchase.
- Agents returned to the Cedar Street building, confirmed Medina rented the second-floor apartment, knocked, announced themselves, and heard someone running away from the front door; the front door was sealed.
- Fearing destruction or loss of evidence, agents forced entry through a side door, seized the appellant (Almonte-Báez), and during a protective sweep observed heroin and drug paraphernalia in plain view.
- Later that day the agents obtained a warrant, executed a search, and seized about 20 kilograms of heroin and drug-processing equipment; Almonte-Báez was charged, moved to suppress evidence as fruit of an unlawful entry, and lost; he appealed only the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agents had probable cause to enter the apartment | Government: totality of circumstances (wiretap showing weekly shipments, Medina observed with huge cash, false statements, prior controlled buy) created fair probability of evidence in the apartment | Almonte-Báez: record and intercepts insufficiently reliable to show Medina received shipments or that controlled buy tied him to the apartment | Court: Probable cause existed based on the agents' knowledge and reasonable inferences |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry | Government: sounds of someone running away after announcement, sealed front door, and risk of rapid destruction (flushing/dispersing drugs) created exigency | Almonte-Báez: noises could indicate someone coming to the door to admit agents; no real exigency | Court: Exigency existed; agents reasonably believed evidence was at risk and did not create the exigency |
| Whether evidence from entry and subsequent warrant was admissible (fruit of the poisonous tree) | Government: entry fell within exigent-circumstances exception; plain-view observations supported subsequent warrant | Almonte-Báez: initial entry unlawful, so both plain-view and warrant search tainted | Court: Evidence admissible because initial entry was lawful (probable cause + exigency), so denial of suppression affirmed |
| Standing / expectation of privacy in the apartment | Government suggested appellant may lack expectation (stash house vs. overnight guest) | Almonte-Báez: claimed privacy to challenge entry | Court: Assumed, without deciding, appellant had expectation of privacy and proceeded to rule on exigency and probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (exigent-circumstances exception; officers may act where evidence faces imminent destruction and officers did not create exigency)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause under totality-of-the-circumstances standard)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (de novo review of probable cause and exigency conclusions; clear-error for fact findings)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (warrantless entries presumptively unreasonable; exceptions narrow)
- United States v. Samboy, 433 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 2005) (exigency where officers have objectively reasonable basis to believe evidence will be lost)
- United States v. Martins, 413 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 2005) (scope and nature of permissible protective sweeps)
- United States v. Romain, 393 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2004) (standard of review when reviewing denial of suppression)