United States v. Barbosa
896 F.3d 60
| 1st Cir. | 2018Background
- On Aug 8, 2015, Jillian Poeira and her mother Ana reported to New Bedford police that John A. Barbosa forced entry, threatened them with a gun, and left after being pushed out; an application for a criminal complaint was prepared by Officer Gregory Sirois.
- The Application (supporting an armed home invasion arrest warrant) recounted the victims’ accounts and noted corroborating details (e.g., Barbosa owned a gray Volvo); police located and arrested Barbosa two days later and seized a bag with a firearm and ammunition.
- Barbosa was federally indicted for being a felon in possession, moved to suppress the seized gun as the fruit of an invalid arrest warrant, and separately moved for a Franks hearing to challenge the truthfulness/completeness of the warrant application; both motions were denied.
- Barbosa pleaded guilty conditionally, preserving appeal rights over the Franks-hearing denial and the denial of suppression; at sentencing the probation office and district court classified him as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based on prior convictions, producing a 15-year mandatory term.
- On appeal Barbosa argued (1) the district court erred in denying a Franks hearing because the Application contained false statements and material omissions (and the officer failed to investigate), and (2) the ACCA designation was improper because his prior convictions did not qualify as ACCA predicates. The First Circuit affirmed on both points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barbosa) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to a Franks hearing | Sirois made false statements (e.g., misstated weight), omitted material facts (Ana’s age, that parties were pushing, that Ana opened the door), and failed to investigate, so a hearing is needed | Application had sufficient reliable facts; omissions/ inaccuracies were not reckless or critical to probable cause | Denied — corrections/omissions would not defeat probable cause; victims’ accounts and some corroboration sufficed |
| Whether officer’s failure to investigate triggered Franks exception | Officer had "obvious reasons" to doubt victims (implausible that 59-year-old overpowered him; 5–6 hour delay) and thus acted recklessly by not investigating | Officer reasonably relied on coherent, corroborated victim statements and asked about delay; no red flags required further inquiry | Denied — no obvious reasons to doubt credibility; explanations for delay were plausible |
| Whether 2000 MA drug conviction is an ACCA "serious drug offense" | Statutory maximum depends on forum; because prosecuted in district court with lower max, it should not qualify | Circuit precedent treats MA §94C §32A(a) convictions as ACCA predicates regardless of forum | Held — qualifies as ACCA predicate under binding circuit precedent |
| Whether 1995 ADW and 2007 AAIM convictions are ACCA "violent felonies" | Argues prior panels were wrong and Supreme Court decisions require reevaluation | Points to controlling First Circuit precedents classifying these as violent felonies | Held — both convictions qualify under binding circuit precedent; ACCA designation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (threshold for challenging affidavit veracity and suppression if intentional/reckless falsehoods vitiate probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for probable cause)
- United States v. Tanguay, 787 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2015) (Franks threshold and duty to investigate; "obvious reasons" standard)
- Burke v. Town of Walpole, 405 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2005) (Massachusetts procedure for arrest-warrant applications and oath requirement)
- United States v. Edwards, 857 F.3d 420 (1st Cir. 2017) (Massachusetts AAIM is a violent felony under the ACCA)
- United States v. Hudson, 823 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2016) (MA drug statute §32A(a) convictions count as ACCA serious drug offenses)
- United States v. Whindleton, 797 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2015) (Massachusetts ADW is a violent felony under the ACCA)
- United States v. López, 890 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2018) (recent reaffirmation of §32A(a) treatment under ACCA)