United States v. Casahonda, 4:17-cr-01904

Background

Magistrate Judge Kimmins found the July 27, 2017 arrests of Casahonda, Moreno, and San Miguel and seizure of Casahonda’s currency violated the Fourth Amendment and recommended suppression of evidence derived from that arrest; the district court adopted the R&R.
After suppression, the government moved to admit certain evidence under the independent source doctrine, and ATF Special Agent Chad Sutterley testified about a parallel ATF investigation originating from a February 2016 bulk-ammunition referral and July 2017 Sportsman’s Warehouse incidents.
On July 15–18, 2017, Sportsman’s Warehouse employees observed suspicious purchases and attempted purchases; ATF Forms 4473 identified Lorea Rubio, San Miguel, and linked a white Chevy Impala registered to Nieto‑Macias to the incidents.
On July 27, 2017, DPS stopped the Impala, arrested Casahonda (driver), Moreno and San Miguel (passengers); ATF learned of that stop but did not participate in the July 27 interviews. ATF later gathered separate records and conducted follow-up interviews (San Miguel Aug 2; Moreno Aug 16; Flores Sept 27).
The court applied the independent source doctrine to individual items: it largely upheld admissibility of San Miguel’s Aug 2 statement (except for certain portions), excluded Moreno’s Aug 16 identification/statements as tainted, admitted the ATF Form 4473 from R&A Tactical as independently obtained, and found several identifications and a later Sept 12 vehicle stop were independently sourced.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of San Miguel’s Aug 2 statement	Sutterley would have interviewed San Miguel based on independent Sportsman’s Warehouse investigation; statement therefore independently sourced	Arrest and knowledge of being a suspect coerced or predisposed San Miguel to self-inculpate; tainted	Admitted except for statements identifying Moreno and statements about the Ammo AZ purchase (those portions tainted)
Admissibility of Moreno’s Aug 16 interview / identification	Government contends Moreno would have been identified and interviewed via independent leads	Moreno’s ID and the ensuing interview flowed from the unconstitutional July 27 stop; identification resulted from tainted photographs/records	Excluded: Moreno’s identification and evidence from his Aug 16 interview are tainted and may not be used at trial
Admissibility of ATF Form 4473 from R&A Tactical	R&A was routinely contacted in independent ATF inquiries; the Form 4473 would have been obtained via ordinary investigation	Form was downstream of the illegal stop and thus fruit of the poisonous tree	Admitted: government met its burden that R&A Form 4473 was obtained from an independent source
Admissibility of other IDs and later Sept 12, 2017 stop (e.g., Casahonda, San Miguel IDs; Sept 12 surveillance of vehicle loading firearms; Flores ID)	Preexisting referrals, prior 2016 investigation, Sportsman’s Warehouse records, and separate surveillance would have produced these IDs and the later stop independently	Many of these leads depended on database entries or photographs created by the July 27 stop	Admitted: court found independent sources for identification of Casahonda and San Miguel, the Sept 12 stop, and evidence connecting Flores (though Moreno/Flores ID provenance had limited gaps addressed above)

Key Cases Cited

Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (establishes independent source doctrine allowing admission of evidence discovered independently of illegal search)
Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (discusses exclusionary rule limits and exceptions to suppression)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (Fourth Amendment limits on searches incident to arrest)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; reasonableness standard)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent searches governed by objective standard)
United States v. Yang, 958 F.3d 851 (9th Cir.) (discusses Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure principles)
United States v. $493,850.00 in U.S. Currency, 518 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2008) (independent investigations can supply lawful sources of information)
United States v. Cales, 493 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1974) (burden of proof for independent source established)
United States v. Fisher, 700 F.2d 780 (2d Cir. 1983) (routine referrals following unrelated arrests can be independent sources)