913 F.3d 491
5th Cir.2019Background
- A confidential informant tipped police that “Arturo” driving a white Chevrolet Avalanche would deliver ~2 kg of methamphetamine to a Bill Miller’s parking lot; surveillance was set up.
- Officers observed Sarli in a white Avalanche at the location, stopped him after a traffic violation, and obtained his consent to search the vehicle; Sarli was then arrested on an outstanding warrant.
- Two drug-sniffing dogs initially did not alert; later an officer found bundles of methamphetamine inside a box of cat litter during a ~51-minute continuous search.
- After discovery, Sarli admitted he had been paid to transport a box of cat litter from a Walmart to the restaurant but denied knowing the box contained drugs; he also cried and expressed fear of prison.
- Sarli moved to suppress the drugs and statements; the district court denied suppression, finding valid consent to search despite some dispute about dissipated probable cause.
- At trial the prosecutor and Detective Contreras mentioned the confidential tip; Sarli objected under the Confrontation Clause. The jury convicted; Sarli appealed on Fourth and Sixth Amendment grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence from Detective Tamez’s search should have been suppressed | Sarli: probable cause dissipated and consent ended before Tamez’s search, so later search unlawful | Government: Sarli validly and unambiguously consented; search duration and continuity did not terminate consent | Court: Affirmed denial of suppression — consent was valid and continuous; no natural end to consent in under an hour search |
| Whether references to the confidential informant’s out-of-court tip violated the Confrontation Clause and require a new trial | Sarli: references were testimonial, deprived him of chance to cross-examine, and contributed to conviction | Government: even if error, references were brief/cumulative and harmless because in-court evidence (Sarli’s admissions, officers’ observations, demeanor) proved knowledge | Court: Majority assumed violation but held error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because in-court evidence independently established guilt; dissent would reverse and order new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588 (5th Cir.) (standard of review on suppression appeals)
- United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838 (5th Cir. 1994) (upholding denial of suppression if any reasonable view supports it)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (objective-reasonableness test for scope of consent to search)
- United States v. Garcia, 604 F.3d 186 (5th Cir.) (affirmative response to general request indicates general consent)
- United States v. Escamilla, 852 F.3d 474 (5th Cir.) (consent may terminate after lengthy delays between searches)
- United States v. Kizzee, 877 F.3d 650 (5th Cir. 2017) (police testimony recounting a non-testifying witness’s inculpatory statements can be testimonial)
- United States v. Alvarado-Valdez, 521 F.3d 337 (5th Cir.) (harmless-error standard for Confrontation Clause violations)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional error harmless only if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Lopez-Monzon, 850 F.3d 202 (5th Cir.) (implausible exculpatory account can indicate consciousness of guilt)
- United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319 (5th Cir.) (large drug quantity as indicia of intent to distribute)
- United States v. Tirado-Tirado, 563 F.3d 117 (5th Cir.) (inadmissible out-of-court statements emphasized in closing can be harmful)
- United States v. Foster, 910 F.3d 813 (5th Cir.) (reliance on tainted testimony during case-in-chief and closing undermines harmless-error finding)
- United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687 (5th Cir.) (government emphasis on out-of-court evidence in closing forecloses harmlessness)