United States v. Benard
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10690
10th Cir.2012Background
- FBI investigated Sanchez for drug dealing out of a Salt Lake tire shop, conducting an authorized wiretap from Dec 16, 2008, to Jan 23, 2009.
- The FBI identified a frequent caller nicknamed Tommy, believed to be purchasing cocaine from Sanchez, though drug terms were not explicit in calls.
- Surveillance linked Benard to the tire store and a white Cadillac, with his prior firearm conviction noted in records.
- On Jan 16, 2009, Tommy and Sanchez arranged a cocaine sale; Benard arrived at the tire store during the planned buy window.
- Utah trooper conducted a wall stop based on a suspected insurance violation, then conducted a pat-down and seized cocaine and marijuana, followed by a gun found in the car.
- Defendant was not advised of Miranda rights during the stop; later statements were challenged, leading to suppression arguments and a conditional guilty plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for automobile exception | Benard tied to Tommy; surveillance showed his presence at buy times. | Insufficient evidence tying him to Sanchez and drug trafficking. | Stop/search upheld under automobile exception based on probable cause. |
| Voluntariness of pat-down consent | Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances. | Factors indicate coercion and limited freedom after stop. | Consent voluntary; district court did not clearly err. |
| Miranda applicability to post-arrest statements | Custody and interrogation requirements not met until after arrest; statements admissible. | Serious custodial interrogation occurred without warnings. | Post-arrest statements improperly admitted; Miranda warnings required and were not satisfied. |
| Harmless error and remand under Rule 11(a)(2) | Suppression error harmless; gun conviction unaffected sentence; plea decision not influenced. | Unclear impact on plea; cannot assume harmlessness; remand appropriate. | Suppression error not harmless; remand for potential withdrawal of plea and reevaluation of counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chavez, 534 F.3d 1338 (10th Cir. 2008) (automobile exception; probable cause governs stop/search)
- United States v. Vazquez, 555 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; de novo for reasonableness)
- United States v. Perdue, 8 F.3d 1455 (10th Cir. 1993) (custody and interrogation definitions; limited exception for custodial warnings)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (definition of interrogation; words/actions reasonably likely to elicit response)
- United States v. DeJear, 552 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2009) (public safety exception not applicable; cautioned scope of statements)
- United States v. Miller, 111 F.3d 747 (10th Cir. 1997) (harmless error standard in plea contexts; government bears burden)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2004) (Rule 52(a) harmless error application in federal proceedings)
- People v. Hill, 117 Cal. Rptr. 393 (Cal. App. 1974) (discussion on harmless error in plea context (state court))
- People v. Grant, 408 N.Y.S.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) (plea-related harmless error considerations (state court))