571 F. App'x 935
11th Cir.2014Background
- Jaimez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and 2.
- Jaimez moved to suppress evidence obtained from a home search, arguing lack of knowing and voluntary consent.
- District court denied the suppression motion after determining the consent was voluntary.
- Officers were at Jaimez’s home in civilian clothes, with weapons concealed, and conducted a non-threatening interview.
- Jaimez signed a consent form in Spanish after being told his rights and that items found with consent could be used in court.
- Currency ($50,000) and other items were seized during the search and related to drug trafficking allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Jaimez’s consent to search voluntary? | Jaimez argues consent was involuntary due to deception. | Jaimez contends officers deceived him about the scope and purpose. | Yes; consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances. |
| Did officers’ scope of search align with consent given? | Jaimez maintains seizure exceeded consent for drugs/weapons. | Jaimez argues broader seizure implied by deceit. | Court held consent encompassed search for drugs/weapons; seized items linked to drug activity were admissible. |
| Is the appeal review limited to plain error on the new argument about deceit? | Jaimez asserts plain error review applies to deceit claim. | State argues standard of review for voluntariness remains; plain error applies to new claim. | Plain error review applied to deceit claim, but finding supported voluntary consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (voluntariness of consent considered under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2002) (reliance on consent as a factual determination to uphold search)
- United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977) (deceit or misrepresentation can render consent involuntary)
- United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2010) (short-term deception about investigation did not render consent involuntary)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc precedential binding pre-1981 Fifth Circuit decisions)