989 F.3d 36
1st Cir.2021Background
- On May 6, 2015, municipal dispatch in Juncos, PR, received two civilian calls reporting gunfire and a white Toyota Tundra involved; officers located and stopped a matching Tundra minutes later driven by Jose Centeno‑González.
- Officers arrested Centeno at the scene; a firearms‑detecting dog later sniffed the exterior of the towed Tundra and alerted.
- The next day officers obtained a warrant to search the vehicle; they found a concealed dashboard compartment containing a firearm, magazines, a glove, and bags testing positive for cocaine; DNA from the gun and glove matched Centeno.
- Centeno was indicted on drug and firearm counts and convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm; jury deadlocked on drug‑trafficking and §924(c) counts.
- Centeno moved to suppress the vehicle evidence and requested a Franks hearing; the magistrate recommended suppression of fruits of an unlawful arrest but the district court denied suppression and denied a Franks hearing; Centeno appealed.
- The First Circuit affirmed: it held the arrest and canine inspection were supported by probable cause/reasonableness, the warrant was supported by probable cause (and not merit a Franks hearing), and the district court did not abuse its discretion on evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Centeno) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of arrest / probable cause to arrest | Stop ripened into unlawful arrest because vehicle match and proximity were insufficient; officers lacked probable cause. | Two independent civilian calls, dispatcher heard detonations, close temporal/spatial proximity, vehicle matched detailed description, and defendant admitted coming from scene — cumulatively established probable cause. | Held: Arrest supported by probable cause under totality of circumstances; no Fourth Amendment violation. |
| Canine sniff of vehicle exterior | Dog sniff after arrest was an unreasonable search (and tainted if arrest unlawful). | Arrest was lawful; canine sniff is minimally intrusive, limited in scope, and reasonable given probable cause and reduced privacy in vehicles. | Held: Dog sniff reasonable and supported by probable cause; no suppression on that ground. |
| Probable cause for vehicle search warrant / affidavit specificity | Affidavit used the term "objects" not "guns," did not specify what dog detected, and omitted dog training; thus insufficient nexus/evidence. | Affidavit reasonably supported inference that transferred "objects" were firearms (given detonations), dog alerted to firearm scent, and the issuing judge could infer nexus; warrant authorized search for weapons. | Held: Affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause; warrant valid (and any deficiency not so manifest as to trigger Leon exclusionary rule). |
| Franks hearing / alleged false statements in affidavit | Affidavit relied on false/misrepresented facts (no hit‑and‑run, calls fabricated); Franks hearing required. | Defendant failed to make the required substantial preliminary showing or supply affidavits/offer of proof to support reckless/knowing falsity. | Held: Denial of Franks hearing not clearly erroneous; defendant failed to satisfy Franks threshold. Claim of ineffective assistance remitted to §2255. |
| Admission of prior bad‑act evidence (2011 hidden‑compartment arrest) | Admission unfairly prejudicial and amounted to propensity evidence. | Testimony went to knowledge/absence of mistake — a non‑propensity purpose under Rule 404(b); limited testimony and limiting instruction minimized prejudice. | Held: District court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible for knowledge/lack of mistake and not overly prejudicial. |
| Exclusion of third‑party firearm convictions and phone records | Exclusion prevented presentation of complete defense (would show prior owner had firearms history and dispatch calls did not occur). | Evidence collateral, of limited probative value to core possession issues, and properly excluded under Rules 403/403 balancing. | Held: Exclusion within district court's discretion; no violation of right to present a defense; no cumulative error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishes threshold for evidentiary hearing on alleged false statements in warrant affidavits)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances standard for probable cause in warrant applications)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (reasonable‑suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (contemporaneous 911 tips can supply reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (canine sniffs are limited in scope and often minimally intrusive)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (vehicle searches incident to arrest and vehicle‑context privacy considerations)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for defective warrants)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (limits on admitting prior‑conviction evidence to avoid unfair prejudice)
- United States v. Beckett, 321 F.3d 26 (affirming practical, deferential review of warrant affidavits under Gates)