177 F. Supp. 3d 721
D.P.R.2016Background
- On May 6, 2015, JMPD received two anonymous calls reporting a white Toyota Tundra with tinted windows delivered firearms to a grey car and that a shooting (and one person run over) occurred in Estancias de la Ceiba; callers reported directions of flight.
- JMPD and PRPD officers encountered and stopped a white Toyota Tundra matching the callers’ description minutes later; Centeno was the sole occupant, appeared nervous, and said he was coming from Estancias de la Ceiba looking for a rental.
- Officers handcuffed, Mirandized, and arrested Centeno; later that evening a certified firearms-detection dog alerted at the driver and front passenger doors of the Tundra.
- The Tundra was seized, towed, and the next day officers obtained a warrant and found a Glock pistol, ammunition, and cocaine during a warrant search.
- Centeno moved to suppress his statement and the seized physical evidence, arguing for a Franks hearing, that the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, and that the dog sniff and subsequent search were unconstitutional.
- The magistrate judge recommended denying suppression of the statement but suppressing the physical evidence; the district court adopted parts of the R&R but rejected its conclusions that the arrest and dog sniff were unconstitutional and denied suppression in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Centeno entitled to a Franks hearing to challenge the warrant affidavit | Centeno: affidavit merits Franks hearing to test alleged omissions/falsehoods | Govt: Centeno failed to make substantial preliminary showing for Franks | Denied — Centeno failed to meet Franks threshold (magistrate and district court adopted) |
| Whether the investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Centeno: stop was unlawful; evidence should be suppressed as fruit of stop | Govt: anonymous calls gave timely, detailed information matching vehicle and location | Stop was lawful — reasonable suspicion supported the stop (magistrate and district court) |
| Whether officers had probable cause to arrest Centeno | Centeno: arrest lacked probable cause; therefore later evidence is fruit of poisonous tree | Govt: callers’ contemporaneous descriptions, close temporal/geographic proximity, Centeno’s demeanour and admission supported probable cause | Arrest was supported by probable cause; magistrate finding to contrary rejected; arrest constitutional |
| Whether the firearms-detection dog sniff was a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause | Centeno: dog sniff was a search unsupported by probable cause and tainted the warrant | Govt: dog sniff was not a search requiring probable cause (analogy to narcotics dog sniffs) | Dog sniff of vehicle exterior was not a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause; magistrate’s suppression recommendation rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (challenge to warrant affidavit standard)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (dog sniff of car exterior during lawful traffic stop is not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (dog sniffs disclose only presence/absence of contraband; limited intrusion)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (contemporaneous anonymous report may supply reasonable suspicion)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (exclusionary rule and "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (arrests must be supported by probable cause)